Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brighton and Hove Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FYLDE WATER BOARD, OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Fylde Water Board, and Oldham and Rochdale," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (BRITISH RESIDENTS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information and can state the number of British subjects that are at present resident in Kabul, Afghanistan; has he had any recent communications from the British representative as to the present conditions existing in Afghanistan; and can he give the House particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The number of British subjects in Kabul has been estimated to be between 300 and 400. His Majesty's Representative has not yet left India for Kabul, but will proceed to his post as soon as final arrangements can be completed.

Mr. DAY: Have we any representative of the British Government at Kabul now?

Mr. DALTON: No, not at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN OCCUPIED TERRITORY (BRITISH OFFICIALS).

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British officials are now stationed in the occupied territory in Germany; what duties they are performing; and where they are working?

Mr. DALTON: The only British officials now stationed in occupied territory are the staff of the British section of the Rhineland High Commission at Wiesbaden consisting of five persons in all. Their duties are to keep in touch with the French occupying authorities and to report upon the situation in occupied territory. They will be withdrawn when the Rhineland is finally evacuated by the French on the 30th of June next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (LOAN)

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will avail himself of an opportunity, prior to the issue in London of a Brazilian loan, to suggest to the Brazilian Government that results beneficial to both countries could be attained by arranging for the greater import into Brazil of British manufactured products specifically against the export to Great Britain of Brazilian frozen meat?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the proposed issue of a Brazilian loan. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (TREATY NEGOTIATIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his negotiations with the Egyptian delegates, the new situation arising from the signature by His Majesty's Government of the Optional clause will be discussed?

Mr. DALTON: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the situation to which he refers will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend during these negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION.

Commander SOUTHBY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the Roman Catholic Church in regard to the question of religious liberty in Russia?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

DEBTS, (CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet urged upon the Soviet Ambassador the rights of British claimants upon the Soviet Government and pressed for a recognition and settlement of the debts due to them?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir; and the object of the negotiations now proceeding is to agree upon a suitable machinery for the consideration of these claims.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the matter before we adjourn for Easter?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend replied a few days ago to a question on that subject. My right hon. Friend is hopeful that he may be able to make a statement when the present stage of the negotiations has been completed.

Captain CAZALET: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider taking any steps to assist those British creditors who, as a result of the Soviet confiscation and repudiation of their property, have no means of subsistence pending the settlement of their claims?

Mr. DALTON: As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, His Majesty's Government have no funds available for assisting the particular British claimants to whom he refers. But they will naturally bear hard cases in mind in the course of negotiations with the Soviet Government.

Captain CAZALET: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these creditors are extremely poor and suffering, that they are without any means, and will he bear that fact in mind in any negotiations?

Captain CAZALET: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that it is 11 years since the Soviet decrees of repudiation and confiscation of property belonging to British subjects were enforced, whether the Foreign Office have taken any steps to keep the claims of British citizens now lodged with the Foreign Office up to date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): Claims against Russia, including those formerly lodged with the Foreign Claims Branch of the Foreign Office, are registered with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade. The register of the Department has remained open for any revision of claims by the claimants that may be required.

Captain CAZALET: In view of the settlement of some of these claims in the near future, has anything been done to keep these claims up-to-date?

Mr. SMITH: So far as the Department is concerned, the register has been kept, and nothing more can be done.

Mr. WISE: Is it not a fact that none of the claims have been verified or examined by the Department?

Mr. SMITH: I cannot say that without notice.

Mr. GILL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the question of circulating full details of the claims made against the Russian Government by or through his Department in respect of outstanding debts and other matters?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. There are some 50,000 claims by 35,000 British claimants registered at the Board of Trade, and this alone would render the course suggested by my hon. Friend impracticable.

Mr. GILL: Can the hon. Gentleman agree, if not to give the details, to give the total amount of the claims?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the hon. Member put in a claim with regard to the plate that disappeared from the Embassy? Surely this is one of the claims to be put forward.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. DALTON: That question has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend on several occasions, and I have nothing to add to what he has said.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is any claim being made for the £9,900 paid by the Foreign Office to a Russian subject instead of £100? Is there anything doing that way?

BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW.

Sir F. HALL: 61.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the estimated cost of the work on the British Embassy at Moscow and to whom it has been entrusted; how much of the estimate represents wages and how much is in respect of material and other items; whether the wages of the men employed for the purpose will be paid direct, and, if not, by whom; if he will say what classes of workers will be employed; and what wages they will receive expressed in terms of English currency?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Negotiations for the lease of the new Embassy at Moscow are still in progress, and although the necessary adaptations have been estimated roughly at £10,000, detailed plans for the work and method of execution have still to be settled. It is not possible, therefore, to give specific answers to the remaining points in the question.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the prices that are paid for labour in this country, and will he be able to let us know later the wages paid in Moscow; if I put down a question on these lines, can he give me any idea when I can get the information?

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot give any idea because I have not any idea myself, but as soon as possible I will give the hon. and gallant Baronet the information.

Captain GUNSTON: Is there a strong room for valuables?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that there is quite as good a one as there is in Grosvenor Square.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he could get it for nothing, as he is dealing with his particular friends?

ECUADOR (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now anything further to report as to the efforts of His Majesty's representative in Ecuador to defend the interests of British holders of securities upon which the government of Ecuador has defaulted on its obligation?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. The Agent of the British bondholders left Ecuador on the 9th of March for this country in order to discuss the situation with the Council of Foreign Bondholders, and pending his arrival there is nothing further to report.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When he does arrive, will the Foreign Office do anything or give the same sort of answer as before?

Mr. DALTON: When he does arrive, if he desires to call at the Foreign Office, we shall be delighted to see him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But, apart from that, is it not about time that the Foreign Office took the initiative in at least one matter of foreign affairs?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH MISSIONARIES.

Sir K. WOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position at Yuanchow, Kiangsi; whether he has official Confirmation that the Rev. and Mrs. R. W. Porteous, British missionaries, have been captured by Communist bandits; and what is the latest information he has concerning them?

Mr. DALTON: The town of Yuanchow, in Kiangsi, has been captured by brigands. The reported capture of the two British missionaries named in the question has been officially confirmed by His Majesty's Minister to China, and urgent representations are being made by him to the central and local Chinese authorities.

Mr. SANDERS: Is there any ground for believing that these particular bandits are Communist bandits?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Are they not all bandits?

Mr. DALTON: We have no information as to the precise brand of brigand.

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position of the negotiations concerning extra-territoriality in China; and what is now the position of British subjects in China in relation thereto?

Mr. DALTON: The negotiations on this subject are still proceeding. As stated in answer to the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 5th of February, British subjects remain in full enjoyment of their treaty rights until such time as the treaties now in force may have been modified by mutual consent.

Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that the Foreign Secretary is having special regard to the present disturbed conditions in China, before he makes any arrangement in the matter?

Mr. DALTON: We have great confidence in our own representative on the spot, and he will no doubt keep us advised on all aspects of the matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although that may be the case, no one has any confidence in the Government?

LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the reason why the question of the right of search and capture of private property at sea is not to be raised during the Naval Conference?

Mr. DALTON: It was mutually agreed during the informal discussions of last year between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States that the question of rights and immunities at sea should not form part of the agenda of the London Naval Conference.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, though this may have been agreed between ourselves and one of the other participants, at least one Government has formally raised this matter in a published document?

Major ROSS: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in addition to the limitation of tonnage in aircraft carriers by the Naval Conference, any limitation of naval aircraft is contemplated; and whether the number of naval aircraft possessed by the Powers concerned will be taken into consideration in settling their relative strengths?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): Limitation of tonnage in aircraft carriers automatically limits the number of carrier-borne aircraft that can be employed. No limitation of shore-based aircraft is contemplated at the present Conference, but the number of naval aircraft possessed by the Powers concerned is borne in mind by the Admiralty.

Major ROSS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the preponderance of some countries in aircraft that can fly off from catapults, and will that fact be borne in mind at the Conference?

Mr. HALL: All those matters are receiving the attention of the Admiralty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any extensions of existing commitments for Great Britain, either in the Mediterranean or elsewhere, have now been contemplated or discussed in connection with the present Naval Conference?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which the Prime Minister returned yesterday to questions on this subject by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Members for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), to which he has nothing to add.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be convenient for my right hon. Friend to say whether this answer covers the proposals for a consultative Pact?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Prime Minister said in the answer which I have just given that he has nothing at all to add to what he said yesterday.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the newspaper reports in the "Times" to-day of what is to be done are correct, and, if so, why
this House is not informed, instead of the newspaper Press?

Mr. WISE: Would the Government consider the laying of papers so that the House may be informed exactly what is or has been proposed?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of the existence of any papers on the subject, but, of course, that is a question which would have to be decided by the Prime Minister.

Captain EDEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any amendment or interpretation of Article XVI of the Covenant is at present under consideration by any of the delegations at the Five-Power Naval Conference; and, if so, whether he will refuse to consent to any modification of that article, which is calculated to increase the British Empire's present commitments or responsibilities?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The interpretation of Article XVI of the Covenant is under consideration, but no proposal for its amendment has been made. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that His Majesty's Government have no intention of entering into any commitments which go beyond the obligations resulting from the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Locarno.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that reply refer to the Covenant as it is or to the Covenant as it may become when it has been modified?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The first part of the reply that I have just given says that there is no proposal under consideration for the amendment of the Covenant. Therefore, my right hon. and gallant Friend's question does not arise.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means by the last answer? Has there not been a committee sitting at Geneva, on which Lord Cecil has been representing the British Government, for the purpose of considering the amendment of the Covenant? Does his answer refer to the Covenant as it stands or to the Covenant as it would be amended if the recommendations of that committee were accepted?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No. I gather that these questions refer only to any conversations that may be going on in London at the present time, and, of course, that does not in any way prejudice discussions that may be going on in the League of Nations for the amendment of the Covenant.

Captain EDEN: Are we to understand that at present discussions are proceeding as to the interpretation of Article XVI apart from the work being done by Lord Cecil?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. The answer was that the interpretation of the Covenant is under consideration.

Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there cannot be any interpretation which is not a commitment?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend on this matter, but is he in a position to say that no question of limitations by other Powers will depend on the interpretation which we put on Article XVI?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Really, I think the House will realise that I am not in a position to give an answer of that kind. I am not a party to the conversations which are going on now among the delegates to the Naval Conference, and therefore I am not in a position to give an answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware, that while I have no desire to press him—

Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

JAM CONTRACTS (CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY, LIMITED).

Mr. HANNON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society have tendered for the supply of jam to the Navy; and whether such tender has been accepted?

Mr. G. HALL: The answer to the question is in the negative.

Mr. COMPTON: Is my hon. Friend prepared to substitute co-operative sauce in the Navy in place of the present H.P.?

RELIGIOUS SERVICES.

Mr. SORENSEN: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to allow men serving in the Navy to absent themselves from compulsory religious services or to accept alternative duties if they profess to hold no religious convictions?

Mr. G. HALL: This is already provided for by the King's Regulations.

CADET CORPS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to continue grants to naval units of cadet corps?

Mr. G. HALL: This matter is under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When this matter is considered will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a great many of these naval cadets go into the merchant service and the fishing fleets for sea training?

Mr. HALL: All those matters will be taken into consideration.

WELFARE CONFERENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to hold a naval welfare conference in the coming months; and, if so, whether he will state the subjects which it is permitted to form the subject of discussion at such a conference?

Mr. G. HALL: The Naval Welfare Conferences are now in progress and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Admiralty Fleet Order which will provide all the information required.

SINGAPORE BASE (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. KELLY: 19.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether any reports have been received recently as to the conditions of labour at Singapore; and what are the wage rates operating for general labour, the hours worked in a normal week, and the provisions made for dealing with employés injured at work?

Mr. G. HALL: Reports are received by the Admiralty from time to time as occasion arises regarding questions affecting the conditions of labour at Singapore. The wages paid by the Admiralty to locally-entered labour are as follow:
For labourers: From 70 to 85 cents a day.
For mechanics: From $1.25 to $3.00 a day.
Free quarters are also provided.
The normal working week of the establishment is 48 hours. The Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply to His Majesty's Naval Establishments abroad; but hurt pay and compensation for injuries are payable at Singapore in the same way as at other Naval Establishments abroad.

Mr. KELLY: Does my hon. Friend feel quite satisfied with the conditions operating there; and, further, does he not consider that the time has arrived for investigation into what is taking place at Singapore?

Mr. HALL: I know that my hon. Friend is very interested in conditions of labour at Singapore, and I shall be quite prepared to meet him at any time to go into all these questions.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state what steps are being taken to ensure that hired employés of long service in His Majesty's dockyards shall have pensions on retirement; and if he can give the nature of the scheme?

Mr. G. HALL: The Superannuation Acts, which apply to civil servants generally, provide for the award of gratuities in accordance with their service to hired employés discharged for age, infirmity or on reduction, but there is no provision in these Acts for the award of pensions to hired employés, neither is any such pension scheme under consideration by the Admiralty.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question is based on phraseology recently approved by the First Lord, and cannot my hon. Friend say whether or not it is the intention of the Government to improve
the scheme so that all employés of long service may get pensions?

Mr. HALL: I can add nothing to the reply.

TRANSJORDAN-NEJD FRONTIER RAIDS.

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any recent reports of inter-tribal raiding on the Transjordan-Nejd frontier; and can he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Recent reports indicate that there has been some recrudescence of raiding in the area mentioned in the question; but the reports are conflicting in character, and I am not in a position to give particulars. The question is under discussion with the Hejaz and Nejd Government.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say when the last report was received?

Dr. SHIELS: We have received a number of reports, but I could not give the exact date.

Captain CAZALET: Was the question of these particular raids discussed at the conference between King Feisal and Ibn Saud?

Dr. SHIELS: I require notice of that question.

CEYLON (CHILD PROTECTION).

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give to the House as to the introduction into the Ceylon legislature of the Bill referred to by the governor of Ceylon, as in contemplation, for limiting the evils attending the transfer for payment of children as domestic servants by a section of the population in the island?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governor of Ceylon reported quite recently that a draft Bill had been prepared dealing with the question of the protection of children, but that it had been found to be unsuitable in some respects and was being revised in the light of suggestions made by the
Ceylon Child Protection Society. I hope that the introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Council will not be long delayed.

CYPRUS (MOSLEM COMMUNITY).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have been received from the Moslem community in Cyprus in relation to the memorial presented to the Government by the recent delegation from Cyprus?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. In September last a memorial was received from the Turkish members of the Legislative Council on behalf of the Moslem Community protesting against the terms of the memorial presented to the Secretary of State by the recent delegation.

NASSAU (LICENSING LAWS).

Mr. FOOT: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who are the members of the licensing board in Nassau; and the present number of licences for saloons and barges, respectively, in Bimini as compared with the respective number 10 years ago?

Dr. SHIELS: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the connection between "saloons" and "barges"?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I would require notice of that question.

Mr. FOOT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that licences have been granted both for saloons and barges, and that the suggestion has been made that these barges have been used for the illegal importation of liquor into the territory of a friendly State?

Dr. SHIELS: Of course, I am aware of what the hon. Member has in mind, but I can assure him that both the local Government and His Majesty's Government are doing all that they can in the direction of preventing it.

Following is the answer:

According to the latest information available, the members of the licensing board in Nassau are as follow:

Stipendiary Magistrate: G. H. F. Cannon (Chairman).

The Receiver-General and Treasurer: N. V. S. Solomon.

J. H. Beet: Acting Postmaster.

The Honourable H. W. Lightburn, J.P. (Member of the Legislative Assembly).

E. C. Moseley, J.P.

As regards the second part of the question, only one licensed hotel is known to exist in Bimini, and there is no information to show that any other licences have been issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE).

Major NATHAN: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now give any information as to the publication of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the recent outbreaks in Palestine and as to the publication of the evidence given before such Committee?

Dr. SHIELS: As the hon. and gallant Member is now aware, the evidence which is very voluminous will be published in due course, omitting that taken in camera; but I am not in a position to give any date.

Major NATHAN: Will the evidence be published in ample time before any discussion takes place in this House; and have steps been taken to ensure that all the material placed before the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations will also be available for the British public?

Dr. SHIELS: It is very difficult for me to give a positive reply to that question. As the hon. Member is aware, the amount of evidence is very large, and it will require careful indexing, which always takes a lot of time. I can hardly say that it will be published before any discussion in the House, but that is a matter which probably might be mentioned to-morrow.

POSTAL RATES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the increase in the letter postage rates from Palestine to Great Britain is still in force or not, and what are the present rates on internal letters in Palestine; what additional revenue the Palestine authorities estimated would accrue in a year by the increase, and what they did actually receive in this period; and whether, if the increase is still in existence, it is proposed to remove it and, if so, when?

Dr. SHIELS: As from 1st April, 1930, the Palestine Government reverted to the postal rates in force for letters to Great Britain and Northern Ireland prior to March, 1929. When the temporary increase came into force it was estimated that the additional revenue would be at the rate of £2,000 annually. The actual receipts were a little over £1,500, in addition to the revenue obtained from letters sent by members of the British garrison, of which I have no particulars. The rates at present in force for inland letters are:
Five mils for first 20 grammes.
Three mils for each additional 20 grammes or part thereof.

JERUSALEM (SITUATION).

Mr. FOOT: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make any statement as to the present position in Jerusalem?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has received no report indicating that the position at Jerusalem calls for special comment at the present moment.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman received a report recently as to whether the special restrictions and regulations which were put in force as a result of the troubles there last year are still in force?

Dr. SHIELS: We have received no report of that kind. As far as I am aware they are still in force.

WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies what has been the nature of the replies to the communication from the Government announcing their policy in respect of the West Indian sugar industry; and whether any further communications have been made by the Government in response to these replies?

Dr. SHIELS: A telegram has just been received from the Governor of the Leeward Islands conveying the text of a resolution from the Antigua Agricultural Society and unofficial members of the Executive Council. The resolution states that the society and unofficial members heartily support the summarised recommendations of the West Indian Sugar Commissioners as being a solution of the sugar problem if given immediate effect, and urges that to prevent distress and destruction of the sugar industry, expenditure by His Majesty's Government in giving effect to the Commissioners' recommendations is reasonable. No reply has yet been returned.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that all the islands have now rejected the proposals put forward by the Government with regard to the sugar industry; and do the Government propose to adhere to their original intention of doing absolutely nothing for the industry?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I have nothing to add to the statement which I made a few days ago.

Mr. HANNON: Do the replies of the hon. Gentleman really mean that the policy of the Government is to destroy the sugar industry of the West Indies?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir.

Mr. HURD: Is that the only reply which has been received?

Dr. SHIELS: That is the only reply so far received.

Captain BOURNE (for Mr. TINNE): 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the improved seedling varieties of sugar cane raised in the West Indies and now in cultivation have been produced in Government establishments?

Dr. SHIELS: The majority of the seedling varieties of sugar-cane under
commercial cultivation in the West Indian Colonies have been raised by Government Departments of Agriculture, notably those of Barbados and British Guiana. A very large number of seedling varieties, similarly raised by Government establishments, are also under experimental test both on Government experiment stations and on trial plots on estates. A number of seedling varieties of sugar-canes have also been raised upon sugar estates independent of Government institutions, especially in British Guiana, and a small number of such seedlings have possessed commercial possibilities and are being grown on small areas in some sugar-growing Colonies. There have also been introductions by Departments of Agriculture from other cane-growing countries of canes which have been reported upon favourably. A small number of Java seedlings so introduced recently are now under experimental trial in Barbados, Antigua, Trinidad and Jamaica.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Member tell us the name of the best variety, and who originally raised it?

Dr. SHIELS: One of the best varieties is Barbados B.H. 10–12, which was produced by the Barbados Department of Agriculture, and the standard variety in British Guiana is D. 625.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the parents of that particular variety? I would like to know whether on one side there is not rather a weakness.

Dr. SHIELS: I think I have given as much information as the hon. Member can assimilate this afternoon.

GAMBIA (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES).

Mr. HORRABIN: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any information from the Governor of the Gambia Colony as to the different treatment awarded by the Government during the recent industrial dispute, to the shipowners' Association and the Bathurst Trade Union, as regards permission to use school premises for meetings?

Dr. SHIELS: There has not been time yet for a reply to be received, as the
next mail after the hon. Member's previous question left England on 21st March, and has only just reached Bathurst.

KENYA (NATIVE SONGS AND DANCES).

Mr. HORRABIN: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Governor of Kenya Colony to the Kikuyu chiefs, in which he strongly supported the prohibition of certain dances and songs among the Kikuyu; and whether this prohibition has the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir; but, as stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 26th March, further information is expected from the Governor of Kenya. From a preliminary telegraphic report it is understood that the prohibition relates to seditious songs and dances of an indecent nature. My Noble Friend naturally supports the local authorities in any proper steps they may take in the interests of public decency and order consistently with the preservation of legitimate freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a certain amount of apprehension exists among the settlers in regard to any interference with these customs; and will he take that fact into consideration?

Dr. SH1ELS: I am sorry, but I did not hear the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that many political songs in this country might be considered both seditious and indecent by the other side?

IMPERIAL CONFERENCES.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 33 and 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether, and, if so, in what manner, the Colony of Southern Rhodesia will be represented this year at the Colonial Office Conference, the Imperial Conference, or the Imperial Economic Conference;
(2) whether, and, if so, in what manner, the Protectorates of Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland will be represented this year at the Colonial Office Conference, the Imperial Conference, or the Imperial Economic Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): All the points which the hon. Member raises are under consideration, but I am not able to make any statement at present.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN - DOYLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House to consider the agenda proposed by the Government for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Until consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions regarding the agenda for the Imperial Conference is further advanced, it would be premature to make any statement, but the Prime Minister hopes that he may be able to give the House information as to the agenda later on.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the subject to which I referred last week and which he described as a stunt will be considered?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have nothing to add to what I said in regard to the stunt last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if it is intended to provide facilities for Members of Parliament to view some of the important films under the control of the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. LUNN: In pursuance of the promise which I gave in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 20th March, arrangements have now been made for a short private display of Empire Marketing Board films to Members of Parliament in the New Gallery Cinema at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 10th April. Tickets of admission have already been sent to Members of the House.

Mr. DAY: Are these films classified for quota under the Cinematograph Films Act?

Mr. LUNN: I require notice of that question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this performance be over before the vote on the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

Mr. LUNN: The performance only lasts about an hour.

Mr. DAY: Are any fees received by the Colonial Office or the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. LUNN: I must ask the hon. Member to put down that question.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the operations of the Empire Marketing Board so as to cover the popularisation of British products in the Dominions and Colonies?

Mr. LUNN: The extension suggested would lie outside the purposes for which the Empire Marketing Fund was provided.

SOUTH AMERICA.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 63.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will publish a White Paper showing what his Department is doing, has done, or proposes to do to put into operation on its own initiative the recommendations contained in the Report of Lord D'Abernon's mission to South America; and will he issue the White Paper in two parts, one dealing with the Department's action upon recommendations as to the Argentine trade and the other as to Brazilian trade?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am meeting Lord D'Abernon and members of his mission to-morrow, in order to discuss the recommendations of his Report, in so far as they affect my Department. I do not at present propose to issue a White Paper, as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, make a full statement
as to what he has done to give effect to the recommendations of the Report after he has seen Lord D'Abernon, and when his Vote comes up before the House?

Mr. GILLETT: I shall certainly be prepared to do that if it is the desire of the House.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who are the members of the Imperial Economic Committee; on how many occasions has the Committee met since March, 1929; what subjects have been under its consideration; and what action has been taken in respect of its recommendations since that date?

Mr. LUNN: As the answer is a long one and contains a list of names and many particulars, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an indication to the House now as to whether this Committee has met at all, and, if so, how often it has met and what useful purpose it serves?

Mr. LUNN: The hon. Member will see from the reply that there have been 49 meetings of the Committee and sub-committees since 1st April, 1929,

Following is the answer:

The members of the Imperial Economic Committee are:

The Right Hon. Sir Halford Mackinder (Chairman).

United Kingdom: Sir Arthur Balfour, Baronet, K.B.E. Sir Thomas Allen, Mr. H. Snell, M.P., Mr. F. N. Blundell.

Canada: Mr. Harrison Watson, Mr. W. A. Wilson.

Australia: Mr. F. L. McDougall, C. M. G.

New Zealand: Mr. T. M. Wilford, K.C., High Commissioner, Mr. R. S. Forsyth.

South Africa: Mr. J. Dimond (one seat vacant).

Irish Free State: Mr. J. W. Dulanty, C.B., C.B.E. (one seat vacant).

Newfoundland: Mr. William C. Job (one seat vacant).

India: Sir Atul Chatterjee, K.C.I.E., High Commissioner, Mr. S. Gupta, Mr. H. A. F. Lindsay, C.I.E.. C.B.E., alternate to Sir Atul Chatterjee.

Southern Rhodesia: Sir Francis Newton, K.C.M.G., C.V.O.. High Commissioner.

Colonies and Protectorates: Sir Gilbert Grindle, K.C.M.G., C.B., Mr. J. H. Batty.

Forty-nine meetings of the Committee and sub-committees have been held since 1st April, 1929.

A report on improving the methods of preparing pigs and pig products for market and marketing within the United Kingdom has been issued; another on hides and skins is in preliminary draft; a trade survey on rubber manufactured goods is in the Press; a memorandum on the import and export trade of the British Empire in 1913 and in 1925 to 1928 has been issued; inquiries are in progress for a marketing report on tea, coffee and cocoa; and a list of raw materials for possible further marketing inquiries is under consideration.

Many of the recommendations suggest action which falls mainly to producers or traders to carry into effect. Those requiring action by Government fall for the most part within the province of the Empire Marketing Board which is largely engaged in carrying out and developing suggestions made by the Imperial Economic Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BANDS (COPYRIGHT MUSIC).

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there is any arrangement between the bands of the Royal Air Force and the Performing Right Society for permission to play copyright music either during their ordinary duties or at social engagements; and will he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Yes, Sir; I am informed that both the Royal Air Force Central Band and the Royal Air Force College Band have an arrangement of this nature with the Performing Right
Society, but the matter is one between the bands and the Society, and the Air Ministry is not officially concerned.

Mr. DAY: Cannot my hon. Friend find out what are the fees that have to be paid to the Society?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already said that the Air Ministry are not officially concerned.

WORLD SPEED RECORD.

Mr. MANDER: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if any further attempts on the world speed record are to be made with the Super-marine S 6 or Gloster-Napier seaplanes; and, if not, for what purpose it is intended to use these aircraft?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the question is that no further attempts on the world speed record are at present contemplated, and to the second, that the high speech aircraft are being used for research purposes.

SCHNEIDER TROPHY.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR (for Sir SAMUEL HOARE): 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his decision as to the loan of high-speed aircraft for the Schneider trophy applies to the machines already in existence and used on the occasion of the last contest in September, 1929, or whether it means merely that the Air Ministry is not prepared to pay for the construction of further high-speed aircraft with a view to their subsequent loan?

Mr. MONTAGUE: My statement on Air Estimates was intended to apply to the proposal that the Air Ministry should undertake the construction and loan of new machines, expenditure on which is not considered justifiable in present circumstances. When the current programme of experimental high-speed flying is completed, however, my Noble Friend will be prepared to consider sympathetically any proposals which may be put forward for lending the machines which are already in existence, provided the cost of any necessary modifications to them is borne by private enterprise, in accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government.

Captain BALFOUR: May I ask whether the insurance would have to be borne by any private firm?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I should imagine that would be the case.

LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will consider the possibility of arranging for flying instruction to be given to civilians who are proposing to enter the Royal Air Force through the medium of light aeroplane clubs instead of the existing schools, seeing that this would result in substantial economies in addition to assisting the extension of these clubs?

Mr. MONTAGUE: My Noble Friend is anxious to make the fullest use of the light aeroplane clubs, and they do already serve a very useful purpose in training possible candidates for entry into the Reserve of Air Force Officers and the Auxiliary Air Force. The standard of knowledge demanded of regular officers of the Royal Air Force is, however, much higher than that which the clubs could reasonably be expected to attain. In order to train up to that standard, which includes much more than the mere ability to fly, the clubs would need to provide themselves with aircraft of varying types and other equipment on the same scale as the flying training schools of the Royal Air Force, and would require a staff of specialised instructors in tactics, armament, and the other technical subjects studied in the Service.

Mr. MANDER: Would it not be practicable to train the pilots up to a certain point, and then pass them on for further work?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think my answer indicates that the light aeroplane clubs serve a useful purpose in training men for entry into the Reserve.

Mr. EVERARD: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire light aeroplane clubs have both been approved for subsidy from 1st April?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Applications for approval from the Leicestershire and
Northamptonshire light aeroplane clubs for subsidy have been received and are under consideration.

Mr. EVERARD: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the £10 grant for each licensed pilot will be given annually to the Approved Light Aeroplane Club or only once on the pilot obtaining a licence?

Mr. MONTAGUE: A £10 grant will be paid to the club in respect of every pilot's licence issued or renewed for a member, subject to the conditions laid down in the agreement with the club being satisfied; consequently, subject to those conditions, if a pilot renews his licence each year, the grant is annual.

OFFICE OF WORKS (SCOTTISH DEPARTMENT)

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to place the Scottish Department of the Office of Works under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Before any such change as that suggested in my hon. Friend's question is considered, it would appear to be desirable to await the result of any inquiry into Scottish Administration which may be held on the lines of the statement which the Prime Minister made during the Debate on the Address in July last. His observations on the subject of such an inquiry will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th July, 1929, columns 931–934.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) ACT (1924) AMENDMENT BILL.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will afford facilities for the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act (1924) Amendment Bill this Session?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that the pressure of public business is such that the answer must be in the negative.

Colonel BROWN: Are we to understand that the Government oppose this Bill?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Oh, no. The hon. and gallant Member must not do anything of the sort. The answer simply says that it is a question of want of time.

Colonel BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill is not opposed on this side of the House, and that therefore, unless the Government side oppose it, it would not take five minutes to go through?

Mr. LEES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information why the last Government did not interfere with the 1924 Act themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY BRIDGES, DEVON AND CORNWALL.

Mr. FOOT: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the complaints as to the condition of those parts of the main roads in Devon and Cornwall which form part of the bridges over the railways; and if he proposes to take any action in relation thereto?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Complaints of this nature have, from time to time, been brought to my notice. In cases where a road over a railway bridge is maintainable by a railway company it is open to the highway authority or the company to apply to me for an Order under the Bridges Act, 1929, transferring the liability for maintenance of the road to the highway authority, and I have under consideration at the present time an application for such an Order by the Great Western Railway Company in respect of seven bridges in the County of Cornwall.

Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Member state how soon he will be able to give a decision on the application before him?

Mr. MORRISON: No, I am afraid I could not say that.

TRAMWAY LOOP LINES.

Mr. SORENSEN: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the advisability of encouraging loop lines in tramways in order that passengers may be embarked and disembarked near the pavement, thus avoiding traffic congestion and lessening public danger?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am advised that any general construction of loop lines on tramways to enable passengers to be taken up or set down near the pavement would be likely to have the effect of increasing traffic congestion and to be a source of danger to other users of the road.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is my hon. Friend aware of any area where these loop lines are in operation?

Mr. MORRISON: No, not on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir F. HALL: Has it not been a fundamental policy of those responsible for tramway accommodation to see that there is always at least the usual 9 feet 6 inches for the purpose of avoiding any accidents?

Mr. MORRISON: I would not say that it has been the universal policy, but certainly it is thought desirable.

ROAD CLASSIFICATION.

Mr. EDE: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of roads were classified Class I and Class II, respectively, for the first time in 1929, distinguishing between those roads which were previously unclassified and those whose classification was altered from Class II to Class I, or vice versa?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In England and Wales the comparative mileages as at 1st April, 1928, and 1st
April, 1929, were:


—
1stApril, 1928.
1st April, 1929.
Increase.


Class I Roads
19,669
19,829
160


Class II Roads
12,114
12,244
130

In Scotland the mileages were:—


—
16th May, 1928.
16th May, 1929.
Increase.


Class I Roads
5,859
6,167
308





Decrease.


Class II Roads
3,633
3,561
72

It would not be possible without considerable expenditure of time to furnish particulars of mileages of roads altered from Class II to Class I or vice versa or declassified, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press for these details.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (ACCIDENTS).

Dr. SALTER: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of persons killed on the highways of this country during 1929 by mechanically-propelled vehicles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The figures asked for are, for England and Wales, 5,369, and for Great Britain 6,016.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that the greater number of these are killed by vehicles going at less than 20 miles an hour?

Mr. SHORT: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

DORKING ELECTRICITY ORDER (INQUIRY).

Mr. EDE: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates being able to announce his decision on the inquiry held last July into the Dorking Electricity Order?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not satisfied that the proposals of the Order as it stands are in the best interests of the development of the electricity supply in Dorking and neighbouring areas, and at my request the position is being discussed by the Electricity Commissioners with the promoters and other parties concerned with a view to making further proposals.

Mr. EDE: In view of the length of time that has elapsed, can my hon. Friend say when any decision is likely to be reached?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not know that the length of time that has elapsed necessarily operates against the point of view of my hon. Friend.

PUBLIC INQUIRIES.

Mr. EDE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport how many public inquiries
were held during 1929 by his Department into applications for Electricity Orders or for the extensions of Electricity Orders; and in how many such cases has no decision yet been announced?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Four such inquiries were held during 1929, and in one case no decision has yet been announced.

RIVER SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.

Captain GUNSTON: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport when the committee which is examining the question of constructing a tidal barrage across the River Severn for the purpose of an electrical power scheme is expected to report?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this subject during the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Transport on the 3rd March. As I then stated, it is expected that the further investigation undertaken by the committee will take about two years to complete.

Mr. FREEMAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether a bridge, both for road and rail traffic, is being considered in conjunction with this barrage scheme?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that is not relevant to the original question which dealt with electricity supply.

ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (FIRE PROTECTION).

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 58.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the fact that Government property is not covered by insurance, he will carefully consider the desirability of installing with sprinklers Government art galleries and museums containing treasures impossible of replenishment in the event of loss by fire?

Mr. LANSBURY: The installation of sprinkler systems in Government art galleries and museums generally involves the risk of serious damage by water to large sections of the collections in the event of the system being brought into operation. The policy at present followed of building in fire-resisting materials, eliminating potential fire-risks wherever
possible, and maintaining systematic fire patrols has been definitely adopted as providing adequate safeguards, but sprinkler systems have been installed in the basements and store-rooms of certain museums where there is no direct risk of damage by water to exhibits.

Mr. GIBSON: While appreciating all that has been done, as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that there are both dry and wet sprinkler systems, and that if the dry sprinklers are installed there is no danger of flooding by water?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not aware of that fact, but I am aware that the system in vogue appears to be a very efficient one, and the best possible that is available at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

LIGHTING.

Mr. SORENSEN: 59.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange that the electric lamps in the House of Commons Committee rooms are changed more frequently; and whether he will take steps to improve the general lighting of the House of Commons?

Mr. LANSBURY: The lamps in the House of Commons Committee rooms are changed as and when necessary, and to do so more frequently would not, in my opinion, improve the lighting. Measures designed to improve the general lighting of the House of Commons are already in hand.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some lamps here which are extremely defective and injurious to the eyesight?

Captain CAZALET: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the shades of the lamps and the chandeliers in Committee Room 14 are in a very dilapidated condition and require his attention?

Mr. LANSBURY: Being of an economic turn of mind, I am doing my best to improve the lighting of the House, but it cannot be done all at once.

Mr. FOOT: Cannot the economy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers be advanced by inducing Members to switch off the lights when they no longer want them?

Mr. LANSBURY: I should be glad if the hon. Member will call a class meeting on that matter.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a little more sunlight coming into this Chamber?

DIVISIONS.

Mr. PERRY: 60.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the new electrical voting apparatus which is to be tried in the French Chamber of Deputies; and whether, in view of the time occupied in recording Divisions, he will consider whether such a system could be introduced into this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have seen references to the apparatus mentioned in the Press. The question as to whether such a system should be introduced is a matter for consideration by a Committee of this House.

Mr. PERRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire into this practice?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether a Committee should be set up, and the usual channels might consider the matter.

Mr. PERRY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the usual channels?

Mr. LEIF JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be impossible to introduce such a system in this House unless every Member had a seat, and that we should require a new Chamber?

Mr. STRAUSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to leave the fate of this or any other Government in the hands of the accuracy of a mechanical machine?

Mr. LANSBURY: That is too deep for me.

INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for India if there is any bar to the admittance of members of the depressed classes into the Indian Civil Service and the other superior services; and, if not, whether he can give information showing the number of members of the depressed classes who have
been admitted into the Indian Civil Service and the other services under the Central Government since 1922?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I cannot without inquiry from the Government of India, which I will undertake, if my hon. and gallant Friend desires, supply the particulars asked for in the latter part of the question. There is, of course, no bar to the admission of members of the depressed classes as such to the superior services.

Major POLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to get this information?

Mr. BENN: Certainly, if my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me precisely the form in which he wishes the inquiry made.

SCOTLAND (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).

Major COLVILLE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Perthshire Education Authority protesting against the raising of the school age at the present time; and, if so, will he give careful consideration to the views expressed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Major COLVILLE: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that the cautious attitude shown by his fellow-countrymen is a very wise one?

Mr. JOHNSTON: A very much larger number of resolutions in favour of the Government's attitude have been received from educational bodies than have been received against it.

Mr. SKELTON: How many have been received from other education authorities?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I cannot give the actual figures without notice.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ANTHRAX).

Dr. SALTER: 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a posi-
tion to present an interim Report upon the investigations which have been carried out by the Scientific and Industrial Research Committee on the disinfection of hides and skins from anthrax?

Mr. SHORT: These investigations are being carried on not by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, but by the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association, but some account of the progress of the research is given on page 130 of the recently published Annual Report of the Department for 1928–29 (Cmd. 3471). I understand that a full account of the results will probably be published, in a scientific journal, but my right hon. Friend proposes to consult with the association as to whether some advance statement should not be issued, and he will communicate the result to my hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the large number of deaths occuring through anthrax in hides and skins, would it not be advisable to appoint a Departmental Committee, as in the case of wool?

Mr. SHORT: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down.

TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir GEORGE JONES: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are willing to help British claimants to enforce their claims against Turkey under Articles 231, 232, 233, and Annex 1 (9) of the Treaty of Versailles, or under Article 297 (e) and Annex 4 of such treaty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Articles in the Treaty of Versailles referred to in the question relate to the responsibility of Germany in respect of damage caused by Germany and her ex-allies within the limits laid down by those Articles, and no claims against Turkey arise under them. The terms in which the question is expressed appear therefore to rest on a misconception.

Sir G. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these claimants were being paid only 52½ per cent. without interest, and that similar claimants against other enemy countries were being paid in full with interest?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is quite a separate question from the one which the hon. Member put down, but the fact is that the money which is available has been sufficient to pay the 52½ per cent., and there is no more money available.

BRITISH GUIANA (RICE CULTIVATION).

Captain BOURNE (for Mr. TINNE): 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the cause of the check which has occurred in the extension of rice cultivation in British Guiana during recent years?

Dr. SHIELS: It appears possible that the decline in rice exports from British Guiana which has taken place since 1928 may be due to a decrease in the demand for the parboiled rice at present produced in the Colony. The whole question has been the subject of a special inquiry by a rice expert whose visit was financed from funds made available by the Empire Marketing Board. The expert's report on his investigations has recently been received, and will shortly be published.

Captain BOURNE: Is the hon. Member satisfied that this reduction is not caused by the prohibition of exports of rice from that country?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the reduction, which was not a reduction of area of cultivation, but a reduction in the amount exported, is due to the fact that British Guiana rice is parboiled. It simply means, if the world demand is for white rice, that unless British Guiana is prepared to meet that demand it must face a falling off.

ANTIGUA AND ST. KITTS-NEVIS.

Captain BOURNE (for Mr. TINNE): 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the cost of administering the government of St. Kitts-Nevis, and Antigua; and how is it met?

Dr. SHIELS: With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to send him copies of the approved Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Antigua and St. Kitts-Nevis for the year 1929–30. The Estimates for the year 1930–31 have not
yet been approved. These Estimates will show the anticipated yield of the local taxes out of which the expenses of the Governments are met.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far he proposes to go to-night and whether it is his intention to ask the House to sit late?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This Motion has been put down for the purpose of ensuring that sufficient progress will be made with the Coal Mines Bill, in order that it shall be finally disposed of at 7.30 to-morrow night. We have no desire or intention of asking the House to sit late, but we should like to get the Building Votes. At any rate, we shall not ask the House to sit after, say, 12 o'clock.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

RATING AND VALUATION.

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section Eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925.
As amended by this Bill, Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, would read as follows:
The rating authority may by resolution direct that, in the case of all dwelling-houses in their area which belong to a class defined in the resolution by reference to rateable value and also, if rent is paid, by reference to the interval at which rent from time to time becomes payable or is collected, the owners thereof shall be rated instead of the occupiers.
The scheme by which the owner of small cottage properties can arrange with
a local authority to pay the rates upon those small properties is well understood. It is a scheme which works well, saving the local authorities expense, trouble, and delay in collecting rates, and saving the tenants concerned from being asked to pay half-yearly or quarterly sums which might make very heavy inroads on their weekly earnings. I believe this system is highly desirable as applied to residential property.
Under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 the scheme applies to all kinds of properties irrespective of the nature and use of those properties. I would like to give as an example the case of a certain rural district in Norfolk where this system applies to mills, brush works, cider works, mineral water works, builders' shops, a railway station, and other railway properties, and sundry tithes and sporting rights. In the majority of those cases the owner and occupier are one and the same person, and such people merely pay less rates than they would otherwise pay if rated in the usual way as occupiers, because they would then have to pay the rate in full. Under Section 11, Subsections (1) and (2), of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 the tenant is allowed to take the compounding allowance upon giving an undertaking to pay the rates whether the premises are occupied or not, and that is a kind of undertaking which can quite safely be given.
I do not see how this state of affairs benefits any local authority at all. I think it is quite clear that in parts of England where you find that the rateable value of property is low, this loss of money to the local authorities imposes a heavy and needless burden on local public finance. I suggest that the real object of a compounding provision in the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 would be quite adequately secured if those provisions are made to apply only to dwelling-houses, and not to other classes of property. I think this change has to be made sooner or later, and I do not see why it should not be made sooner than later. I believe that it will be welcomed all over the country by a great many local authorities.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Elmley, Mr. Christie, Mr. W. B. Taylor, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Butler, Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. Frank Owen, Mr. Alpass, Mr. Foot, and Mr. Kedward.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL,

"to amend section eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925." [Performing Animals (Regulation) Amendment Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to impose, in the interests of safety, precautions to be observed in the construction, alteration, and use of reservoirs, and to amend the Law with respect to liability for damage and injury caused by the escape of water from reservoirs." [Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to sub-divide the shares in the issued capital of the Liverpool Exchange Company; to confer further powers upon that Company; to make further provisions with respect to the Exchange News Room; and for other purposes." [Liverpool Exchange Company Bill [Lords.]

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday. and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

As amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions of district scheme.)

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out paragraph (b).
Paragraph (b) empowers the executive board
to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies, imposed upon them at such times and for such periods as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective coal mines in the district, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district.
In other words, it raises district levies from coal that has to be consumed at home in order to sell it at a cheaper rate below the cost of production either for export or for special purposes, or for special industries. Ever since the Committee deleted the original proposal for a central levy, the value of this district levy has become less, and I do not see why the Government should cling to it with the determination with which they are apparently prepared to do. Under the paragraph which I am proposing to delete, before any district scheme of this kind can be accepted, it must receive the consent of the central council. It seems to me very unlikely that the central council, consisting of representatives of the various districts, are going to give one district an advantage which they cannot claim for themselves. We have been assured by the President of the Board of Trade that it is exceedingly unlikely, and in fact almost impossible, that all the districts will join in all forming district schemes, and thus defeat the purpose of this House in deleting the central scheme. Therefore, we are left with the district schemes which have to obtain the consent of the central council. It seems to me that under these circumstances the statutory power of compulsion will not be used, and therefore there is very little use in retaining words which will have no effect.
There are other far more cogent and potent reasons for deleting these words. The principle of this sort of levy is thoroughly bad when applied in statutory compulsory proposals of this kind. It is quite true that under the Five Counties Scheme a policy of this kind was carried out, but anybody who considers this question seriously must realise that that was a thoroughly voluntary scheme peculiarly suitable to a certain area where the proportion between the export trade and the home consumption of coal was something like 8 per cent. and 92 per cent. Therefore, it was to the advantage of the whole district that the large proportion who wish to sell their coal inland should pay a levy in order to get rid of the small proportion of export coal which would otherwise hamper their transactions.
That is a situation which may easily arise again, and the mere fact that they are able to carry that scheme out shows that it is perfectly possible to do it by voluntary methods. Therefore, the proposal to do it by a compulsory statutory provision is entirely unnecessary. We are told that paragraph (b) is absolutely necessary for Scotland, and that the home consumers in the Lanarkshire coalfield must have some provision of this sort to enable the Fife export trade to be carried on to remove obstruction from the path of the Lanarkshire coalfield. If this provision is so much desired by Scotland, why is it that the Scottish coalowners are utterly opposed to this Bill? I cannot believe that if it were so necessary to have this provision in Scotland, as the President of the Board of Trade has made out, we should have this wholesale opposition to the Bill which apparently there is in Scotland.
The general principle of unfairness to home industries is, of course, apparent, and it must be remembered that this is not the only proposal for raising prices against those who wish to consume coal at home. It is the third proposal of that kind in the Bill. First of all, we have the quota, the effect of which, obviously, if you reduce the output of a mine and retain its standing charges at the same figure, must be to raise the cost of production. We also have the special power of fixing prices, which must operate against those consuming coal at home. Obviously, it cannot operate
against those who are trying to export coal against foreign competition. Now we have this third power to make coal dearer to those who wish to use it at home. It is a very unfair burden on our home industries, and, although the President of the Board of Trade has told us that this will be a method by which coal can be sold at a reduced rate to the heavy industries, who require it so much and whose prosperity is so vital to the coal industry, it is obviously perfectly possible, under a voluntary scheme, to sell coal to those particular industries as and when the coal industry wishes to do so, without having a compulsory statutory provision of this kind.
A statutory compulsory provision of this kind assumes that the price in other directions is going to be fixed so high that a compulsory provision of this sort is absolutely necessary in order to make it possible to keep down the price which is to be charged for export coal, and to enable operations of that sort to be carried through. As I have said, in circumstances in which it is really desirable and necessary, it has already proved possible to make such arrangements, and, therefore, this provision is not needed in this Bill; and, as it is mischievous in many other directions, I desire to see it eliminated.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is not difficult to understand why the President of the Board of Trade has indicated that he does not propose to accept this Amendment. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has just pointed out, on account of the previous action taken by the House in Committee, a certain provision which ran more or less parallel with this one was eliminated from the Measure, but the President of the Board of Trade is clinging, like a dying man to a log, to that portion which is still left, making provision for raising a district levy. It is interesting to try to ascertain the real basis and reason for bringing this matter forward in the Bill at all. When we consider the various stages through which the Measure has passed, and the various speeches on the different provisions, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Government, in undertaking to carry out 50 per cent. of
a promise given before they were in office, have been compelled to find means whereby that promise may be implemented without irretrievably damaging those in whose interests they are purporting to act, namely, the coal miners of this country.
It is clear that, if there is a provision for fixing prices, it must work in the direction of raising prices, and the President of the Board of Trade is faced with the difficulty which that entails, namely, the impossibility of even keeping our present proportion of the export markets of the world, which we have managed to hold with very great difficulty at the low prices which are forced upon us by world competition. When his Bill seeks, by these other measures, to raise the price of coal, he finds himself faced with the necessity of putting in some provision that is going to undo what would otherwise be such a menace. It has been cut out of that part of the Bill which deals with the central organisation, and we are left with that part of it which deals with the district organisation, and which is a mere shadow of what was originally proposed.
It seems to me quite obvious that, as far as proportion is concerned, the real basis of this particular feature has been eliminated, and, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, it is improbable that what is left will be able to operate in the way proposed in the complete scheme. It has been proved that under special conditions it may have been worth while to do this by a voluntary arrangement, but one of the objections that many of us have to this Bill is that it makes statutory and compulsory, and therefore inelastic, certain action which may be taken in the ordinary course of industry of various sorts, with which a number of Members of this House are more or less familiar, when special conditions from time to time arise which need to be dealt with in special ways. That is the case in trying to capture a certain deal in a market, whether at home or abroad, whether in connection with coal or anything else. When a voluntary organisation, which has complete freedom of action, considers such a problem in all its aspects and deals with it in the way that it considers best, no one can criticise action of that sort.
The function of the Government in this House is to see that no action is taken by any part of the community which is going to hold up the community and exploit it. This Measure, so far from doing that, purports to exploit the community by means of an Act of Parliament. It is quite feasible and proper for such action to be taken voluntarily, and to be taken successfully, as in the case of the much quoted Five Counties Scheme, but it does not follow that it is sound policy to put such a provision into an Act of Parliament, particularly when 75 per cent. of the original proposal has been eliminated already, this being merely the redundant remnant. I feel that under these conditions the President of the Board of Trade might well face the situation which has been forced upon him, and might realise that the postcript should disappear with the main letter.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider the arguments which he addressed to the House the last time this proposal was before it. I think that everyone in the House will agree that we were all taken by surprise when the Government declined to accept this proposal consequent upon the decision of the Committee to exclude the central levy. We all thought that as a matter of course, and almost as a matter of necessary consequence, when the central levy was gone, these district levies would go too, because there really is no argument, as far as I can see, which could have been advanced in favour of the central levy which could not be advanced in favour of the district levy, and certainly there is hardly any argument which can be advanced against the central levy which would not be advanced with equal force against the district levy. I do not think I am putting it too high when I say that the House was taken entirely by surprise by the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to ask it to reject the proposal to abandon the district levy.
4.0 p.m.
What is the objection which is common to the central levy and to the district levy? It is that in both cases you are forcing coalowners against their will to conduct their business in a way which they think unsound. It may be said that that is incidental to a Bill which forces
everyone into a compulsory trust, whether they like it or not, but do let us have some limit to compulsion. This proposal of a district levy goes a great deal farther, and it goes unnecessarily far. You not only force the dissentient owner against his will to conduct his business in a certain way, but you force him to pay a levy, that is to say, to pay a tribute, to add to his costs in a way which he thinks is thoroughly unsound. And what do you do with the levy when you have got it. You do not apply it to the general benefit of the community. You apply it to the benefit of those particular competitors of the coalowners who happen to be engaged in the export trade or the particular trade you desire to subsidise. It is open, if a district likes, to have a levy for a common purpose, and all the people in the district, or, say, 70 per cent. think it good business, but if 30 per cent. stand out, why are you forcing them in? You are forcing them to pay a levy simply to give an advantage to their competitors as against themselves, not in the public interest but in the interest of some competitors in the trade. That seems to me to be wholly unfair in itself. It is an entirely novel proposition. I have heard of a levy imposed on a trade in order to buy somebody up, so that all who are left behind may derive a common advantage. That is done under the Licensing Act. But there is no common advantage here, because it will damage the people forced to come in against their will, and make the competition keener against them. There is really no argument for the trade itself, and you cannot say that it is in the public interest. You are going to do something which is inherently unjust. You might have the over-riding argument that you are seeking the public interest, but you can advance no such argument here. It is as much, and indeed more, against the public interest than it is against the interest of the dissenting coalowners themselves.
If you put a levy on a dissentient coal-owner, he has to find the money somewhere, and the only way to find it is out of the proceeds of the coal he sells. You are adding to his costs, and the only way he can recoup himself for the levy is out of his sales in the home market. He cannot recoup himself from any other source, and, therefore, by this levy upon dissen-
tient coalowners, you are putting up the price of coal still more against the home consumer. Admittedly—and the right hon. Gentleman himself has made no secret of it—the whole object of this levy, as it was of the central levy, is in order that you may create a bounty on export coal. I do not want again to go over all the arguments which have been advanced against that, but from every quarter of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman was assailed with irresistable arguments that this was inverted Protection, and that of all the extraordinary proposals ever advanced, the proposal to put an additional tax upon the home consumer of coal in order to make coal cheaper for the foreign competitor, was the most astounding proposal that has ever found itself in a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was defeated on the proposal for a central levy. The Committee, as I think he will admit, was dead against giving him power to make a general levy against the home consumer in order to subsidise export coal.
The argument receives increasing weight from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is even at this moment conducting negotiations with foreign countries in order to try to induce them to abandon subsidies on exports. I do not know how far he has got. He promised us when he returned to Geneva that he would pursue his negotiations actively. I wish him well in the attempt, but how can he go forward with any hope of success in that attempt if in this Bill he deliberately takes power to levy upon the coalowners a subsidy in favour of export coal, and do by Statute exactly what he is now complaining that foreign countries are doing by administrative action. He cannot begin to conduct the case of appeal against these foreign countries if the one weapon with which he acts is this Bill under which he takes power to do precisely the same thing. It is unnecessary in this Bill. It is not a vital part of the Bill. It is unjust to the dissentient owners. It is hopelessly unjust to the consumers of coal in this country, and I do beg of the right hon. Gentleman not to load the dice any more heavily against British industry. This is a matter which, as I understand, is so little a vital part of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have taken the
same view that I took on this question on the last occasion. After negotiations had been successfully concluded for the future conduct of this Measure, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway held that they were perfectly free to oppose this proposal. I sincerely hope that they may take the same view to-day, as I suggest that it is altogether outside the essential scope of this Bill. I am sure that it is contrary to the general sense of the House, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to abandon these proposals.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The position in the Committee stage with regard to this general proposal was very clearly decided. The majority against the proposal was quite decisive. I do not think that there was any doubt in any part of the Committee that the general feeling was opposed to the raising of the levy against the home consumer for the benefit of the foreign consumer, and it was a great surprise to every hon. Member with whom I discussed the subject to find that the district levy is left in when the national levy comes out, and still more a surprise to those who know anything about the interests of the local coal people.
There was something to be said for a national levy, but not for a district levy. The national levy did, at all events, raise the levy over a national area, but, under this arrangement, districts like Yorkshire will be able to raise a very much larger levy in the lump sum, although the same rate per ton may be charged, than in the case of Northumberland, Durham or Fife. It means that really in competition between Northumberland, Durham, Fife and Yorkshire, this proposal will give an unnatural advantage to Yorkshire which it would not otherwise obtain. The Yorkshire coal district is in a very strong position, and is exploited by men of great skill. It is not far from the ports of shipment, and can hold its own very well without any artificial assistance; but, under this arrangement, it will be able to raise by 3d. per ton such a large sum of money that it will be able to beat the other export centres of England and Scotland easily in competition for Scandinavian and northern European markets, and, indeed, elsewhere. In these circumstances, the President of the Board of Trade is perpe-
trating on districts a greater injustice than the national levy. If the national levy were discarded by the Committee, how much more should the House discard this?
There is another aspect which will arise on the next Amendment. We were not told on the Committee stage what was to happen with regard to bunker coal. Indeed, when the proposal was put to the Committee, the Deputy-Chairman called on the Member to move the bunker coal Amendment, and he promptly said, as the main thing had gone, and obviously the bunker coal Amendment had become superfluous, he did not move. That was accepted by the Committee as being a natural proposal, and now we find the district levy in and no statement made by the Government as to bunker coal. We are, therefore, in a new difficulty, and I shall be interested to hear the President of the Board of Trade say how he proposes to meet this point.
I need not repeat the bunker coal arguments, which, I am sure, are familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, but I can summarise them very easily. Is bunker coal to be treated as export coal or not? If it is to be treated as export coal, obviously the levy which is contemplated in this paragraph will be available for providing bunker coal to ships of all nationalities on the export price. If, however, it is not to be treated as export coal, then bunker coal will be sold not at its natural market price, but this price plus the levy, and will be regarded as internally consumed coal, and there will be an extra charge put on it.
The effect of that will be, in the first place, to make bunkering in this country comparatively expensive. It will be more expensive than bunkering abroad. Surely that is against the national interest. We want to attract as many vessels as possible to this country. There are some of our principal ports in the north, some in Fife, and certainly on the Tyne, where special provision has been made for bunkering vessels on route from Scandinavia to North America, which find most convenient bunkering places on the Tyne and elsewhere. These vessels we want to see coming back in increasing numbers. Harbour authorities have made provision
for them. It is a very usefu1 traffic, and we sell this coal at a profitable rate. It brings income not only to the coal-owners, but to the harbour authorities. To diminish that traffic to any extent is not only bad for the locality, but for the country as a whole.
What will happen if the right hon. Gentleman adheres to this proposal, and does not regard bunker coal as export coal? It means that bunkering abroad will be relatively cheaper than bunkering in this country even with the same coal. I cannot think that that is really the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, but if he leaves the Bill as it comes from the Committee with this provision that is actually what will happen, unless he is going to treat bunker coal as export coal. I would much rather he left the thing alone and did not define bunker coal as export coal, but left it out altogether along with the local levy, and then we should get rid of one unfair advantage given to foreign stations where they supply our own coal at a lower rate than we can do it ourselves, and also get rid of this rivalry between the various coalfields. The only coalfield which would get any large advantage would be South Yorkshire. I do not want to say anything against South Yorkshire. I would like to see them all flourish, but I do not want to see Yorkshire, with all its natural advantages, given this artificial advantage. In these circumstances, and certainly bearing very closely in mind what was the decision of the Committee on the principle, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not press for these proposals to be incorporated in the Bill.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The subject which is raised by this Amendment was discussed at considerable length during the Committee stage of the Bill, to some extent on the national levy, and also to a large extent on the district levy, and it would be idle for me to say that I can offer anything new this afternoon. But, in view of the interest of the subject and its undoubted importance, the House will bear with me if I summarise the position as the Government see it. It is perfectly true that in Debate in Committee, and on a narrow Division, the central levy was deleted from the Bill by eight votes, but, after discussion, the
district levy was retained by 47 votes. Those are the broad facts of the decisions of the House which, in a preliminary way we have to bear in mind, and I ought to make it plain also that at no stage during the Second Reading or in Committee did the Government indicate in any way that they would abandon the view which they held regarding either the national or the district levy. I do not think anyone in any part of the House will suggest that I have given any promise or pledge in that connection.
If I may refer to the national levy, I regret its disappearance from the Bill, because, as is indeed recognised in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made, it, may be that the owners would initiate a scheme of that kind in the coalfields as a whole, and the only effect of its disappearance is that, apart from the loss of the compulsory powers regarding a minority, it probably makes it impossible for the Board of Trade to have any kind of view—I do not say supervision—regarding that feature in the scheme if it functions on those lines. Moreover, the disappearance of the proposal will raise very great difficulty in Northumberland and Durham and certain other exporting districts.
I am not disputing that there is much that is similar between a national and a district levy, but, coming to the actual proposition before the House, I quite definitely took the view during the Committee stage that there were important distinctions. What are these considerations applying to the district levy? Of course, I should not be in order in discussing the national proposition. First of all, if we take the case of the Five Counties Scheme, it is true that in that great area, which covers Yorkshire and the Midlands, and also Lancashire and Cheshire, there was in the main a home demand, and it is also admitted that it was possible by a very small levy to provide substantial support for export coal and to send out an increased quantity of exports. That was done under the Five Counties Scheme, but, of course, the position is different when we pass to the other districts in which the proportion of the export trade is very much higher, Northumberland, Durham, the East Coast of Scotland, and South Wales.
It has been suggested that this is some form of subsidy for export coal, or a step
which will confer advantages upon our industrial or other competitors in other countries. But the right hon. Gentleman, when he used the argument on the de-rating scheme as applied to export coal, in February, 1929, supplied the very answer to that. It is just as valid to-day as it was then, and I do not dispute it now any more than I disputed it then. This export coal does not go to industrial concerns in other countries. The great bulk of it goes to shipping or public utilities, and the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion resisted this argument by pointing out that there was no competition in that sense as between steelworks there and steelworks here, because, as he quite correctly said, these collieries on the Continent are already linked up to the iron and steel works, or the iron and steel works to collieries, and consequently our export coal was going to an enterprise which was largely non-competitive. But even if this argument were not valid, it has never been proposed under the district levy, any more than it has been proposed under the national levy, to export coal at less than the world price.
The central consideration which I have always had to bear in mind is this: If we cannot export coal at that price, we cannot get the trade, and, so far as I am concerned, that appears to be the end of the story in this connection. It has been to some extent suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) that this leads to discrimination between one district and another. He thinks, perhaps, it is only the Yorkshire area that would benefit, but, as has been pointed out, it is expressly provided in the Bill that any district will be subject to the co-ordination of the central body and under this scheme the whole of the coalfields of the country are brought into one central organisation whose duty it is, as I understand it, to have regard to the interests of the different districts and to see that justice is done as between one and another.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is a very important question of fact. Under the Bill as it stands as I read it, it would be perfectly possible for any one district to impose a district levy here and for other districts to object, and there would be no power in the central board.

Mr. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Probably this is what has led to misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "co-ordination." The word in the Bill is not "co-ordination" but "consent."

Mr. GRAHAM: I hope I have made it plain in all these Debates that the object of this central machinery is to achieve as much co-ordination as ever they can in the industry in all parts of the country, and there are rights of arbitration in any matter affecting the districts—as this matter does—just as there are rights of arbitration between individual coal-owners in any matter that applies to them. So that the danger of district competition on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman does not really apply.
There is another and a more important consideration. It has been suggested over and over again in these Debates that the export trade gets an advantage at the expense of the home trade but, as I imagine anyone familiar with the Five Counties Scheme or any other scheme will see, the home trade gains advantages at the same time. First of all, there is, as regards the industry as a whole, the undeniable advantage of getting a larger volume of trade, and I have pointed out that unfortunately there can be little hope of much greater elasticity in the home demand for coal. That hope of elasticity and improvement lies very largely in the export trade. We are not subsidising the export trade. We must sell coal at the European price, and I should have thought increased outward coal cargoes would appeal to a representative of shipping, apart altogether from the beneficial effect on consumers in this country in stimulating as much cargo one way as the other. But in addition to that advantage in the aggregate volume of trade, and as applied to that part of the trade where there is a chance of elasticity, there is the further consideration that in so far as we help export we take a certain quantity of coal off the inland market where there might be difficulty in selling it at a remunerative level. There are advantages to the home market, and I have heard it said by representative owners that where they have paid that levy they have got a return for it in a better level of prices at
home. An economic level of prices at beginning to end is what I have alone had in view in this legislation.
Now may I refer to some other points which have been raised in the Debate. Why do we regard this district levy as necessary, and why do we intend to press our point to a Division if a Division should be called? Take the case of Scotland, which is one wages ascertainment district. We have the trade in that country divided into the Lanarkshire area, which is very largely a home trade, and the Fifeshire area, which is very largely export. Assuming that there is a better inland price for coal in Scotland under this scheme, it is clear that that better inland price, which again I describe as an economic price, will lead to an improvement in the wages ascertainment in Scotland, as indeed it is only fair that it should do, and must do, if the position of the industry as a whole is improved. That means that these additional wages must be paid over the whole of Scotland, and they must be paid in the exporting districts in Fife as well. If the situation worked out in that way, as it must, clearly Fife is not able to compete in its export trade unless a device of this kind is available to the owners. It will be suggested that they will be driven to do this in the districts as they are driven to do it in the national scheme. That may be. This is purely permissive in the Bill but it is important that we should have some kind of power. For these reasons I am obliged to put it to the House that the Government regard this as of very great importance and that we must adhere to the view we have taken.
I feel compelled to add a word or two about bunker coal, since the right hon. Gentleman has virtually raised that point. Though it is the subject of a separate Amendment, it may shorten the discussion. The broad facts in connection with bunker coal are that, generally speaking, it is rather higher in price, free on board, than export coal. The right hon. Gentleman seeks, under the proposal he has in view, to say that the price of that bunker coal shall never be higher than export coal, that in other words they are to be assimilated for all future purposes under the Bill, assuming that the levy is introduced. I observe that he has not now attached his name to that Amendment, and that it stands in the name of three
Conservative Members of the House, and I should hope that my argument on this point will prevail, because the right hon. Gentleman is the last whom I would accuse of seeking any preference to one branch of industry which is not afforded to all others.
It may be suggested that, unless something is introduced to assimilate these prices, vessels may be tempted to bunker abroad, and we may lose a certain part of the bunker trade. But surely it is not the intention of the industry to lose any part of its trade, and, in any case, what are the obstacles that would require to be overcome before it would be more profitable to them to bunker abroad? Surely they have to look first of all to the charges for loading in this country plus the freight of the coal to the foreign port. I exclude the cost of bunkering here and the cost of bunkering there, because on this analysis one may be set against the other, although in Great Britain they are usually rather higher than abroad. It would require to be a very remarkable subsidy or subvention which would lead to that result, even if the owners were foolish enough to risk anything of the kind. They have no intention of taking such a step. Their whole object will be to preserve their bunker trade and, if they can, to increase it. There are the safeguards of the committees of investigation as to price, together with the manifest desire of the industry to get all the trade it possibly can. In these circumstances, could my right hon. Friend seriously suggest that we should do for the shipping industry in Great Britain what we have done for no other class of trade under the Bill, namely, put in a statutory protection as regards price to say that under no circumstances will that charge be higher than that of the export price? I do not think that my right hon. Friend would press it. For these very weighty reasons, as I regard them, I am unable to accept either this Amendment or the one which follows.
I want to add these words of a personal kind, which, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House, but particularly on the Liberal benches, will appreciate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) yesterday said that in the last propositions which were put to the Government their case had been met, and I need only
state this afternoon that no reference was made to the position of bunker coal. As I understand the position, hon. Members on the Liberal benches, while disliking the district levy, were not prepared to vote against the Government in our insistence that this part should be retained. No reference was made to bunker coal at all. In that connection, it is my duty to say that we regard an Amendment of this kind as of great importance and one which we could not accept without creating grave anomaly in the working of this scheme. I have done my very best from beginning to end to meet hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman indicated, that everything of substance has already been covered, and I trust, therefore, that we can go to this Division confident of a majority for the proposal of the Government.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: On a point of Order. My name is attached to the next Amendment—in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no moneys so raised shall be applied to facilitate the sale of any coal to be exported at a less price than is charged for such class of coal for bunkering ships.
Are we to have a Debate on bunker coal now, or may I reserve my arguments until that Amendment is called?

Mr. SPEAKER: Although the two things are rather closely connected, I think that it would be better to have a Debate on bunker coal separately.

Sir BASIL PETO: There are two points to which I want to call the attention of the House and of the President of the Board of Trade. He has, as usual, made a very able speech in support of the retention of paragraph (b) which my right hon. Friend has moved to omit, but he has had to make the best of a very thin case indeed. There is one part of the argument used in favour of the district levy which has not been dealt with as fully as it should be dealt with before the House comes to a decision on this question. From time to time in the Debates on this question of levy, both district and national, hon. Members on this side of the House have tried to find out what class of coal consumer is really going to pay the cost of this levy. I
should like to take the matter step by step. It is clear that you cannot have a levy raised as this paragraph proposes upon all the coalowners of a district in proportion to the output or the disposal of the products of their coal mines without adding to the price which they will have to ask in the aggregate for their coal. The particular paragraph of the Bill goes on to say:
For the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district.
Broadly speaking, we have said that the purpose of these levies is to facilitate the export trade at the expense of consumers of coal at home. The President of the Board of Trade has told us in earlier Debates that that is not necessarily so. He mentioned again to-day that the levy might be used for facilitating the sale of coal to steel works and to other industries of that sort in this country. When we have been met with that argument, we have said that it will be the users of domestic coal who will really pay the increased price. When that argument was brought forward, the President of the Board of Trade indicated that the coal which he really had in mind as going to have to pay the cost of the levy was coal used by the public utility undertakings of the country. It has been made abundantly clear since that statement was made in the House that the public utility undertakings in the country look with great misgivings and with some resentment on the proposal to charge more for coal used for domestic gas and purposes of that kind in order to facilitate the export trade of coal. It has also been shown that somebody has to pay more if somebody is going to pay less. They are not a class of coal users whose coal can be increased in price without those coal-users increasing the cost of gas, which is just as great a necessity as coal to the poor people throughout the country.
I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade—perhaps the Secretary for Mines will say a word on the subject later—who are the users of coal who are to bear the extra cost of coal due to these district levies. The President of the Board of Trade just now referred to the fact that under this proposal there would undoubtedly be an opportunity for what he termed a better
inland price. He instanced the Fife coalfield and said what a good thing it would be for coal miners in the County of Fife to have a better inland price, because that would be a reason for better wages. I want to point out that what is a better inland price from the colliery point of view is, for every user of coal in the country, a worse inland price. It is the definite proposal, on the lines of the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, to charge something either to every industry or coal user, or to some selected industries or coal users in order to create this better inland price which the President of the Board of Trade regards with such equanimity.
When he was dealing with the export trade, the right hon. Gentleman tried to prove to the House that the district levy would not be used in any sense as a subsidy for coal for export. Therefore, he said, the very powerful argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) as to the position of the President of the Board of Trade in going to Geneva to ask foreign countries to do away with export bounties when he is enacting, by Statute, a system of providing export bounties for coal, fell to the ground. Why? Because he said that it was never their intention to sell coal under this levy system at less than the European or the world prices.
I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade should put forward such a thin argument as that. Anyone familiar with the export trade in any article, whether it is manufactured or is coal or raw material, knows perfectly well that if you want to get an increase in export trade and secure some portion of the export trade now done by your competitors, you have not an earthly chance of doing so if you only quote European prices or world prices. You have to do something more than that. You have to show your customer some argument why he should change from his present source of supply and give you the order, and the only argument you can bring to bear upon him is that you have a better article at the same price or an article of equal value at a shade lower price. Therefore, it is idle for the President of the Board of Trade to say that there is nothing in my right hon. Friend's argument, because he him-
self does not propose to go below the general European price or the world price. You cannot increase your export trade unless you are prepared to compete, and you can only compete by giving a turn below the prices at present existing.
Therefore all the arguments brought forward as to the incidence of the actual levy fall to the ground when it comes to be charged to somebody. We have had no indication from the President of the Board of Trade that there is any body of consumers in this country who can afford to pay this increased price without doing injury to the general interest and the general industries of the country. When the right hon. Gentleman tries to meet the other argument that we are really introducing a system of export bounties, which we so much decry when other countries do so in our home market, by the very thin argument that he does not propose to undercut the European price of coal, I think it can clearly be shown that he has put forward no case for the retention of these district levies. The national levy having gone, these district levies are less defensible even than that other form of national levy which the House decided against.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I want to put a point to the secretary for Mines concerning the inland trade upon which I am not quite clear. It arises out of the remarks which were made by the President of the Board of Trade in the Committee stage on this clause. He told the Committee that probably there would be a levy, except in a few districts, and that it would only be applied in order to facilitate the sale of certain classes of coal particularly export coal and coal for heavy industries. Will it be possible on this assumption for, say, a colliery district in Scotland, or the executive board in charge of the district, to come to the conclusion that the iron and steel trade or any other heavy industry should receive coal at a cheaper price? Having come to that conclusion, should we authorise a levy for the benefit of those particular industries when, perhaps, in another district, say, in Durham, the executive board might take an entirely contrary view in regard to the iron and steel industry in their own area? If this is possible, will not this position arise? If the iron and steel industry in Scot-
land obtains subsidised coal, will not pressure be brought to bear on the executive boards by the iron and steel industry in Durham and in other parts of Great Britain, to impose a levy for their benefit? You would be getting by a sort of back door method exactly what you are trying to avoid, namely, not cut throat competition in prices, but cut throat competition in levies. I may be under a complete misapprehension, but I shall be obliged if the Secretary for Mines will let me know whether there is any risk of such a thing taking place?

Major COLFOX: It will be interesting to see what part the Liberal party take in the Division. The Naval Conference is still sitting. Half an hour ago the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) addressed the House apparently as representing the leader of his party, who at that moment was sitting by his side, and he made a very brave gesture, which indicated that he and his party disapproved strongly of the Government's action in resisting this Amendment. He suggested, however, that if the Government were prepared to consider favourably the later Amendment with regard to bunker coal, perhaps he and his party would withdraw their opposition to the Government in respect of the Amendment then under discussion. The President of the Board of Trade, in his reply, as far as I could interpret it, in his usual very pleasant way, flatly turned down the offer which had been made to him by the right hon. Member, and threw back the Liberal party on their Naval Conference excuse once again.
I suppose that it is almost too much to expect the Liberal party to carry their convictions and their real beliefs into the Lobby with us on this Amendment. It was interesting as a spectator to notice the interchange of pleasantries and pseudo threats by the right hon. Member on the front Liberal bench, and the way in which he was turned down by the President of the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Member for St. Ives was speaking, as I imagine he was, as representing the leader of his party, and since his proposal was turned down by the Government spokesman, then, if he and his party have any wish to be true to their principles, their convictions and their speeches, they will vote with us on this occasion. It is almost too much to
expect the Liberal party to do anything except to consult the expediency of the moment, and therefore I presume that they will once more fall back upon their Naval Conference excuse, and support the Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 147.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[4.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Messer, Fred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Middleton, G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major J.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morley, Ralph


Angell, Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Arnott, John
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.


Ayles, Walter
Hardle, George D.
Moses, J. J. H.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilsten)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Barnes, Alfred John
Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.


Barr, James
Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, Hugh


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellamy, Albert
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, George Herold (Ilkeston)


Benson, G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Palin, John Henry


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hollins, A.
Paling, Wilfrid


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkin, Daniel
Palmer, E. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Horrabin, J. F.
Perry, S. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brockway, A. Fenner
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Brothers, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Burgess, F. G.
Kinley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Knight, Holford
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Church, Major A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sandham, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cove, William G.
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sexton, James


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dalton, Hugh
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Day, Harry
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shield, George William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Devlin, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dickson, T.
Longden, F.
Shinwell, E.


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Freser, J. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duncan, Charles
Lowth, Thomas
Simmons, C. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Sinkinson, George


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McElwee, A.
Smith. Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gibblns, Joseph
Mansfield, W.
Snell, Harry


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gill, T. H.
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Gillett, George M.
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Melville, Sir James
Sullivan, J.


Sutton, J. E.
Walker, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wellhead, Richard C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tinker, John Joseph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Toole, Joseph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Tout, W. J.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Townend, A. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wise, E. F.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Turner, B.
West, F. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Vaughan, D. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Walkden, A. G.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr




T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
England, Colonel A.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Ferguson, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fermoy, Lord
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fleiden, E. B.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beaumont, M. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Berry, Sir George
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grace, John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Carver. Major W. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Simms, Major-General J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Skelton, A. N.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill. Brig.-General Sir George
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cowan, D. M.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cranbourne, Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Muirhead, A. J.



Eden, Captain Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sir Frederick Thomson and




Captain Wallace.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no moneys so raised shall be applied to facilitate the sale of any coal to be exported at a less price than is charged for such class of coal for bunkering ships.
We have heard something about the question of bunker coal during the discussion on the last Amendment. I am in a somewhat unfortunate position, inasmuch as the President of the Board
of Trade has intimated that he is not able to accept this Amendment, unless in the meantime he has changed his mind after consultation with hon. and right hon. Members, and struck a bargain with them. The votes recorded in the Division would seem to indicate that something of that sort has happened. However, I am an optimistic person, and I move the Amendment in the hope that we shall be able to carry it.
5.0 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade has supplied me with a few points on which I can base my arguments. He spoke in the early part of his speech, before he came to the question of bunker coal, of the effect which the export trade in coal would have upon certain industries. He referred to the industries in foreign countries which are mainly responsible for taking our export coal. He emphasised the fact that it would not interfere with the manufactures of this country because the bulk of this coal goes to public utility undertakings, to railways and to shipping. I want the House to bear in mind the word "shipping," because it is on behalf of the shipping of this country that I am moving this Amendment. We have the clear argument advanced by the President of the Board of Trade that a good portion of this export coal goes to shipping, which takes its bunkers in other ports. He also told us that we were not paying higher prices f.o.b. than was being paid in other ports. I have some figures which have been supplied me in connection with the Five Counties Scheme, not by colliery owners or those responsible for that scheme, but by the people who have to pay for this bunker coal. Not long ago the subsidy on export coal was ls. 6d. per ton, and within the last two or three weeks it has been increased to 3s. per ton, to date from the 1st March. The consequence is that export prices have dropped from about 17s. 3d. to 16s.; and the price we are paying at Grimsby for bunker coal from the Five Counties Scheme is 18s. 6d. per ton, f.o.b. I suggest that the contention of the President of the Board of Trade is not quite accurate as regards the present position and as shown by the operation of the Five Counties Scheme.
What has happened there? They are now drawing only 65 per cent. of their capacity, as against 72½ per cent. a short time ago, and this has been dropped to 60 per cent. for the moment. There is a considerable amount of coal in the districts covered by the Five Counties Scheme. The result is that pits will draw less coal and export more. If they have this extra subsidy for export coal they are going to increase their export trade, with the result that there will be less
coal available for bunkers in this country and for other trades and industries. What will be the result? There can be only one result, and that is that prices must harden against the home consumer and the people who have to bunker coal. That is the reason why we are so concerned about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot expect to have any advantage over any other trade and industry. That is a reasonable argument, if he was carrying it out under this Bill. But under the district levy scheme district committees will have power to make concessions to any class of coal. For instance, they could make a concession to the iron and steel industry, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument that this would give us something different to other industries falls entirely to the ground, unless he is prepared to place bunker coal in the same category as iron and steel.
If we are looking for a precedent in this matter it can be easily found. When we passed the Railway Freights Rebate Act of 1928 a special appeal was made by myself and other hon. Members representing ports where the matter was considered one of great importance, and we put up so strong a case that the Government accepted our Amendment and included, along with export coal, the relief under that particular Act to bunker coal and to bunker coal for fishing vessels. We shall certainly suffer if we do not get this concession on behalf of fishing vessels and those which take large quantities of bunkers in the Humber in competition with Continental ports, particularly the Hook of Holland, Rotterdam, Hamburg and the Keil Canal, as regards vessels proceeding to and from the Baltic and the Mediterranean. These ports have other advantages over our own ports. They are more on the direct routes. That is an advantage which we must accept, we cannot alter it. They have the advantage that port charges are much less than they are here. That is a difficulty, and I am afraid I cannot suggest a remedy for it. Then they are prepared to bunker ships at any time of the day or night, including Saturdays or Sundays; there is no restriction on bunkering. I am not going to suggest that our men should work under the conditions which prevail at Continental ports. I do not want to see that at all; and the men I represent
do not want the same conditions. But we have to face the fact that we have this competition and that they are in a position in these ports to offer these extra facilities.
If on the top of all these advantages we have also to face the fact that they can supply British coal for bunkering at a less price than we can supply it here then I must ask the Government to consider the position in which our people at home will be. It may be said that they will be taking in foreign coal in these ports, but investigation has proved—and I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade knows all about it—that, while the coal supplied at these ports is chiefly German, Dutch and occasional and little Belgian, there is also quite a considerable quantity of British coal; and there will be more supplied if this Amendment is not accepted. And we shall have the spectacle of encouragement being given by this country for the bunkering of ships in foreign ports with cheaper British coal than we can supply in our own ports. That will be a great loss to our workers, and I am surprised that the Transport Workers' Union have not taken a more active interest in this matter. It will considerably affect them. The coal trimmers will lose considerably. In the case of some of our fishing vessels the coal has to be man-handled, and it means far more wages paid to the workmen than is the case with large vessels. The point of view of the men who work at these ports should be taken into consideration.
We should lose in many directions. We shall lose in port charges and light dues, which all go to maintain our ports and waterways. When these vessels come in for bunker coal there are always large orders for stores. Many vessels come into Grimsby and Immingham simply for the purpose of bunker coal, not to take cargo, and a considerable trade has been created for the district by taking in supplies and stores. Naturally this has been very helpful indeed. Vessels come into these ports which would never have used them but for the bunkering facilities and the reasonable price of coal; and some of them have consented to take cargo. In time a considerable business has grown up which otherwise would never have been created, because vessels going to
Australia and abroad would never call there in the ordinary way. It is just as easy for them to call at a continental port as at Immingham or any of our East Coast ports, and if they can get the same quality of coal at a lower price in these continental ports there is no doubt that they will take advantage of the opportunity. A considerable amount of work is also created by the repairs which are sometimes necessary. They may be small repairs, but it means employment to a considerable number of men and is of great advantage to our East Coast ports.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very interested in the speech of the hon. Member. Will he explain to me how he thinks it is possible to send our own coal as export coal to Hamburg, with extra freight, and then sell it cheaper than coal in Immingham and Hull?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will consult the people in his own port of Hull who are responsible for exporting this coal and who have had to work under the Five Counties Scheme he will get that information without any difficulty. I am speaking now on behalf of those who know and understand this industry through and through, and who foresee that if this Amendment is not accepted we shall be in the very condition which the hon. and gallant Member believes cannot exist. I speak also on behalf of the fishing industry in this country. We argue, and I think fairly, that coal consumed on fishing vessels is really export coal because it is consumed outside this country, outside the three mile limit. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is used for any home industry. We have to compete with German, Belgian and Icelandic trawlers, who use our ports but who do not, and will not, take our coal unless it is to their advantage. We want to be able to compete with them on fair and square lines.
It is not a question of the inland consumption of coal. This coal is consumed in the same way as export coal; that is, outside the United Kingdom. This industry alone takes 3½ million tons of coal per annum from the coal mines of this country. Grimsby alone takes a million and a quarter tons of coal, and the industry keeps in employment full
time all the year round over 6,000 miners. We do not want to see any of that trade going to foreign ports; and it is possible for trawlers to coal at ports other than their home port. We do not want that. These foreign trawlers, who use our port freely and who have to pay no more than ordinary British trawlers for the facilities provided, will be able to get their coal cheaper from their own home ports and then compete with our own people in our own markets here. That is not fair or just.
We have had considerable experience of the Five Counties Scheme in Grimsby, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will know exactly what has happened in the City of Hull. Under that scheme we have the alternative of being able to buy elsewhere in the United Kingdom if we do not get satisfactory terms from those responsible for the Five Counties Scheme. It may be argued that as this is a district scheme we shall still be able to do that, but the words of the President of the Board of Trade clearly indicate that he is endeavouring, through this clause, to get a sort of codification throughout the country and that we shall not be able to go from one district to another and get a better price quoted. That I take it is the object. In other words, although we are not to have what is called a national scheme, we are to have a district scheme which will really operate as a national scheme when it comes to the quoting of prices.
We realise that if we are to be absolutely in the hands of the coalowners of this country and of those responsible for fixing prices things are going to be very difficult for us in the fishing industry. It is not merely a question of the owners of these vessels losing money over this deal. It is well known to hon. Members that the crews of these vessels are paid on shares. Some of them are working on shares alone, and their earnings depend entirely on the earnings of the vessel. Not long ago I quoted in this House some figures showing that 1s. per ton on the price of coal would make all the difference to the earnings of the men.
This is not merely an owners' question; it is a workmen's question. The fish has to be sold in the market by public auction. It is all very well to say, "You
can pass it on to the consumer." They cannot in this case. The fish has to be sold at the quayside. If it fetches a good price that is all the better for the man who has risked his life in getting the fish. If it is sold at a low price he has to grin and bear it and hope for better times. What he does know is that 25 per cent. of the cost of running a vessel is swallowed up by coal, and that with dear coal it is not possible to make the vessels pay at all. I am assured by those who know the business through and through that if 3s. a ton is added to the cost of coal—that was a figure mentioned by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—it means practical ruination for the fishing industry. I ask the House to consider whether it is right to attempt to destroy any industry in this country when it is possible to have a fair and square deal between all the parties concerned.
I have been asked by my people in Grimsby to press this Amendment for all I am worth. It is not a question of looking after something that they feel may not happen. They are indeed very much concerned about the matter. It is true that contracts have been made for some time ahead. There is some little difficulty about these contracts, and although I cannot go into that matter on this Amendment I want the President of the Board of Trade to give it serious consideration. We discussed on the Committee stage the question of the contracts already entered into. According to my reading of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment those contracts hold good, but it does seem to me that there is going to be great difficulty in regard to one party to the contract, that is the coalowner, in carrying out the arrangements. I may have a chance to speak on the subject on the Third Reading. If my Amendment is accepted all those difficulties will go by the board. We are quite prepared to pay for the bunker coal used by our fishing vessels the price charged to the foreigner for his coal. That would be a fair and square deal. We do not want to set our men against the miners. We are keen to see that the miners have as good a living as our own men. But we cannot see any sense in putting our people at a grave disadvantage compared with the foreigner with
regard to bunker coal for shipping generally and particularly with regard to bunker coal for fishing vessels.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: I was not here to move this Amendment, to which my name is attached, but I should like to support it. Throughout the Debates very little has been said as to the effect of this Bill on shipping. With my hon. Friend who has just spoken I wish to press this Amendment with all the energy available. I am particularly glad to see the Lord Privy Seal present, because I know how dear to his heart is the question of shipping. I cannot help recalling a very important speech that the right hon. Gentleman made in this House, I think it was on the Consolidated Fund Bill a few weeks ago, when he told us of his trip to Canada and of an endeavour he had made to arrange an interchange of wheat cargoes with coal cargoes. So hopeful was he as to the result of his trip that he said British shipowners had been encouraged by what he had done and that they were there and then contracting for no less than 35,000 tons of new ships to put into this new trade. I am, therefore, sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point that we are stressing in this Amendment. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman hoped that the new trade would be carried in British ships. It is obvious that one of the main charges in this new business or in any business of the kind is the freight. In the freight one of the main charges is the cost of bunker coal. In that respect the two great industries of shipping and coal are completely inter-dependent. Anything that affects the price of coal affects the price of the whole.
As far as I can see in this district council or other body that has to arrange for the levying of a subsidy to facilitate trade in any particular class of coal, there would be no representation of the shipowner. I do not find anywhere in the Bill that the immense shipping trade is to have a voice in the settlement of the matter. It is true that the shipowner may come in at a late hour on another Committee for examination, but that will be far too late and will be merely a kind of coroner's inquest after the event. The shipowner is not to have a voice in the preliminaries. In answer to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as to the impossibility of Welsh coal competing in a Continental port with coal in a British port, let me say that I have this moment returned from Antwerp. There I saw two ships loading cargo for Buenos Aires. One Ship was bunkering with German coal. The other ship had gone to Antwerp loaded with Welsh bunker coal obtained in this country.
Let us assume that this Bill becomes an Act and that the South Wales district has decided to put a subsidy on the export of the class of South Wales coal which is used for ships' bunkers. Three shillings a ton has been mentioned, but there is no limit in the Bill to the amount of the subsidy. Let us suppose that there is a subsidy of three shillings a ton on exported Welsh coal to Antwerp. The ship that I have seen in Antwerp buys this subsidised Welsh coal in Antwerp. Another British ship loads in Antwerp having taken in unsubsidised coal at Cardiff and having paid 3s. a ton more for it. Both ships go out to Buenos Ayres and discharge their cargoes. They are both competing for a cargo of wheat to be brought back to this country. Let it be remembered that there are more ships than cargoes to Buenos Ayres today. Obviously the foreign ship, having bought bunker coal at a cheaper rate, has a distinct advantage compared with the British ship.
It is a matter of pence per ton in Buenos Ayres. It does not matter to the shipper there what ship carries his wheat; there is no sentiment about nationality or the flag or anything else. A great firm like that of Dreyfus or any other firm shipping wheat in Buenos Ayres must get it carried at the lowest possible rate. As I say, it is a question of pence per ton. The ship that has the subsidised coal has an advantage of several pence per ton compared with the British ship, and it gets the cargo of wheat. The British ship is left lying empty at her moorings in one of the most expensive ports in the world. This is a most serious question. It is not a good answer for the President of the Board of Trade to say to me, "But if this concession is granted to British ships the steel industry and other industries will have an equal claim on my consideration." The competition in shipping is
different from that in any other industry.
If a British ship is driven off a trade route anywhere in the world immediately there is a foreign ship available to take its place. Physically a foreign ship is competing with the British ship ton per ton of cargo and pound per pound of freight on every trade route in the world. Our shipping has to meet far harsher and more strenuous competition than any other British industry. Of all the shipowners of the world British shipowners are least inclined to ask for Government assistance, although they compete with ships which have the advantage of every kind of subsidy and Government assistance and a very much lower wage standard. The shipping industry to-day is in such a condition as has never been known in the memory of any shipowner. Every thing must be taken into consideration in passing a Bill of this kind. With all the vehemence at my command I would urge the President of the Board of Trade to take this very serious matter into earnest consideration, and at least to permit this modest safeguard in a clause which, as it stands, may do harm that is incalculable.

Mr. RUNC1MAN: My hon. Friends have stated the case so well and so persuasively that it is scarcely necessary for me to give it any further support, but I thought I detected in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on a previous Amendment, a suggestion that I was asking that a privilege should be given to the shipping industry which was not to be given to other industries. I think my right hon. Friend's logical mind has got a little out of gear. What is the privilege which I was asking for British shipping? It was that British shipping and all other shipping using our ports—because I carefully said "shipping under all flags"—should have the advantage with regard to bunker coal which is given to other consumers of British coal abroad. That is to say, that if there is to be a subsidy of 2s. a ton given on coal mined in this country and sent abroad to foreign consumers, we should also provide that that 2s. a ton will apply to bunker coal as well as to coal sent to other consumers abroad. What discrimination is there in that proposal? I merely asked
that British shipping might be put on the same footing as foreign manufacturers, foreign gas consumers, foreign railways. That is all I ask—no discrimination but exactly the same footing as the other foreign consumers of coal.
Then my right hon. Friend came down to the argument of figures. Let us see exactly what his proposal amounts to. I am leaving out the subject of discrimination, because I really do not think that he is making a fair charge when he puts that point against me. All I am asking for is equality. But I wish to argue the question on its merits, not as a matter of theory but as a matter of actual practice. What does the right hon. Gentleman's proposal amount to as it stands if he does not count bunker coal as export coal? If there is a 6d. levy on inland consumed coal, and if that 6d. levy produces a 2s. subsidy, what is the result? These figures, I may say, are an underestimate in both cases, because there has been in South Yorkshire, under the Five Counties Scheme the instance of a 3d. levy producing over 3s. of a subsidy, and therefore I am keeping well within the mark. I apply that addition and subtraction to the normal price of bunker coal as it was a few weeks ago in the River Tyne—not even to the prices today when they are abnormally low. Bunker coal was then being sold at 15s. a ton on board ship at the Commissioner's staithes which is the usual bunkering place there. If this Bill goes through unaltered, it means that that 15s. will normally rise to 15s. 6d. because there will be a 6d. levy on to the 15s.; and at the same time, that coal, if it went abroad to the foreign consumer, would be landed in the foreign port and sold to them at 13s 6d. plus freight. One price would go up to 15s. 6d. and the other would come down to from 13s. to 13s. 6d.
My right hon. Friend may say that that will not enable the foreign ports to compete, but that is exactly what it does. If you add 6d. on to the one, and take 2s. off the other, you then make a gap between the two of at least half-a-crown, and it may be more. Then what happens abroad? The right hon. Gentleman apparently thinks—and I imagine the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was also in some doubt about this point—that because the coal
has to go abroad in ships, that, fact must equalise matters. Let me again give the actual facts. Only last week British coal was bought in Rotterdam and Flushing at 21s. a ton. Exactly the same coal was supplied to British ships in the Thames at 26s. 8d. per ton. That difference was not due to the machinations of the merchants or to something which is wrong with the capitalist system. Nothing of the kind. It was the bald cost of the coal plus port charges and handling charges and the dues which had to be paid in respect of it. Those are the facts.
When we come to a comparison between bunkering at Flushing or Rotterdam or the Hook, and bunkering at Immingham or the Tyne or Leith—very common bunkering places—what do we find? We find that the advantage which the Tyne and Immingham and Leith possess is offset by the fact that when a foreign vessel comes into any one of these three ports to bunker it has to pay port charges. I take a normal illustration. A vessel comes into the Tyne or Leith to take 400 tons of bunker coal. These 400 tons of coal at recent prices would have worked out at a cost of about £300 free on board, but the vessel would have had to pay port charges varying according to the size of the vessel from £75 to £125. Therefore, the total cost which the vessel has been put to by coming into one of these ports—with port charges, pilotage, dues, and all that added together—comes to from £375 to £425 according to the size of the vessel. If that vessel had taken the coal at Rotterdam or Flushing at 21s. it would have been put to exactly the same expense, but there would have been no loss of time, and I need not tell my right hon. Friend what a valuable thing time is in connection with shipping. The vessel would not have lost any time there; it would have bunkered there as soon as it had discharged its cargo brought in from the River Plate or wherever it came from, and would have been ready to go off elsewhere.
The advantage, therefore, lies at the present moment, by the mere throw of perhaps 6d. or 1s. a ton, with the foreign ports. We do not want that to go on, but under the Bill, if the right hon. Gentleman leaves it as it is, not only will that go on, but it will give them an
advantage of 2s. 6d. a ton into the bargain. He cannot mean to do so. I am sure he does not intend to do so, and if anybody were to accuse him roundly of wishing to add to the disadvantages under which we already labour, a matter of another 2s. per ton, I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate the accusation. He would say that we had misconceived his character and his intellect in making such a suggestion. Yet that is actually what he is doing under these proposals. He does not seem to know that he is doing it, but he is doing it. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend for not knowing. He cannot be expected to know the technicalities of a business of this kind as intimately as those who live by it, but I assure him that in what I have just said I have understated every figure, and that I could give him dozens of instances of exactly the same kind of thing.
In these circumstances, is it unfair to say that when the coal leaves our ports, when it goes down the spout into the hold of the ship, it should always be regarded as export coal rather than that we should draw this artificial distinction? The reason why I say that is because you cannot discriminate, when the coal goes abroad, between bunker coal and other coal. If you put the other coal that goes abroad and the coal used for bunkering purposes on the same level, the discrimination which we are now describing would not arise, but under the Bill simply because coal goes into a foreign port to be used by foreign consumers it will receive the advantage of this bounty which is really placing our bunkering ports under a disadvantage.
I will tell my right hon. Friend what I should do with regard to any vessel with which I had to deal in these circumstances. I manage a vessel as a trustee, and it is my duty to get as much profit out of her as I can. I would have to bunker her abroad. I would do that with any vessel, because I do not want vessels to be laid up at a time when something like 300 ships are already laid up in British ports. I want to keep the vessels going, and in order to do that I am bound to do my bunkering in the places where I can do it cheapest, and if it is proposed to give an artificial advantage to me for bunkering in Rotterdam or Flushing, then I am bound to
do it there and not to bring the vessel over here for bunkering purposes. Other people suffer in consequence. There are the trimmers, a very important class of the community, pilots, port hands and other men engaged in work of that character—they suffer as a result.
It might not be my duty always to cut the thing as fine as all that, and there is the advantage in bringing a vessel into the home port for bunkering that you can see it for yourself, but do not let us wipe out that advantage by unfair inverted and artificial discrimination of this kind. I think that my right hon. Friend cannot really have taken into account the effect of this artificial discrimination. I noticed that in the course of an earlier speech he made some reference to the price of coal, and I forget whether he said that bunker coal was dearer or Cheaper than other cargo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dearer!"] I went to the trouble of refreshing my memory from trade sources by ascertaining the prices obtaining yesterday on the Newcastle exchange, and one cannot say that it is either dearer or cheaper. One cannot draw a distinction. What are known as "D.C.B.," which is a trade term for a fine standardised coal, was sold yesterday on the Newcastle exchange at from 14s. 3d. to 14s. 6d., according to the quantities taken. Tyne prime large were sold at from 13s. 9d. to 14s., and what are called best Durham bunker sold from 14s. 6d. to 15s. 6d. Turning to gas, I find that best Durham gas coal sold at 16s. and Wear special gas at 16s. 9d. What deduction can be drawn from these prices? Not the deduction drawn by my right hon. Friend. The deduction is that it is impossible to draw any trade distinction between bunker coal and coal which is sent for export. Every kind of coal is sent abroad as export coal—some of it is gas coal, some of it is coal to be used for lighting, some of it is coal to be used for railways, some of it is coal to be used for ships.
A very large proportion of our coal which goes abroad now is used as bunker coal ultimately, although it may not be called bunker coal when it goes from here. How does it go? It goes in the same ship as the other coal. It is let down the same spout as the other coal.
A vessel goes alongside the stage, and she first gets coal put into her No. 2 hatch and her No. 3 hatch; then she has coal put into her No. 1 hatch and her No. 4 hatch. Then she takes coal into her side bunkers, and it is all the same coal. It all goes down the same spout, and ultimately it may be used for exactly the same purposes. If it goes to a coaling station, what does my right hon. Friend say? He says, "I have to draw a distinction between the coal in No. 1 hold and the coal in No. 2 hold although there may be nothing but a wooden partition between them." Is that logical? Is that sensible? Does it bring any advantage to the mining industry? That is what my right hon. Friend has at heart in this Bill. He wants to help the mining industry, and so do all of us. There are some of us who have given considerable pledges in regard to that matter, and have done so against our own personal interests. We all want to help the milling industry, but we cannot do so by the manipulation of an artificial discrimination of this kind.
If the right hon. Gentleman adopts this plan, I feel sure that in practice he will very soon want to abandon it. The only deduction to be drawn from it is that you are giving an artificial advantage to foreign coaling ports. You are placing a premium on the bunkering at foreign ports, not only of foreign vessels, but of British vessels and British fishing vessels, to which the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) referred with great exactitude and no exaggeration. Do not let us take any action of that kind. The trade is in a precarious enough state without placing it under any artificial disadvantages, and I beg of my right hon. Friend not to adhere too obstinately to the views which he has taken on this matter. He may say that it is logical. I am not an authority on logic, but I do pose as an authority on the price of coal. I have had to buy so much of it in my life that I know more or less what the conditions of the market are, and let my right hon. Friend believe me when I say that, if we pass these proposals as they stand, we are going to place British ports and our coaling stations under a grave disadvantage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The case which has been put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment
and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) on the surface appears very strong indeed until one comes to examine it a little more closely. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us about the coal which was put into the No. 1 and the No. 4 holds of a ship, and then into the side bunkers for the engine-room, and he tried to make the House believe that a wooden partition dividing these different compartments would separate coal charged at different prices—the difference amounting to as much as 3s. according to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). [Interruption.] At any rate, the hon. Member said that there was a very substantial difference in the price. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had a great deal to do with coalowners and has, I suppose, bought millions of tons of coal during his long and distinguished association with the shipping industry. Does he suppose that the coalowners are such lunatics that by putting a heavy difference, like that indicated by the hon. Member for Grimsby, on the coal supplied for bunkering and the coal supplied for export, they are going to kill their own business?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The short answer to that is that it is happening now under the Five Counties Scheme. I quoted figures given to me—and they are authentic—to the effect that at present export prices are 16s., and they are charging 18s. 6d., and there is a rebate on the export of 3s.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is a very narrow margin, but in any case this Five Counties Scheme has been praised up to the skies from the other side of the House. I have been taken to task and criticised for daring to lay my hand on that sacred ark of the covenant of the Conservative party. The Five Counties Scheme, as I have said before in this House, has put us to grave inconvenience in the fishing ports of this country. That was an ad hoc scheme, without any power of compulsion, entered into by amateurs, for selfish reasons, without the Board of Trade having any power or, under the late Government, any will to interfere; but under this Bill there are many safeguards. Let me, however, return to the right hon. Member for St. Ives. His shipowner friends are not going to be so mad as to differentiate
between these two kinds of coal. They will get no advantage from so doing, and, if they do, remember that they are only encouraging the use of oil in British ships. If they make it more difficult for ships to bunker in our home ports, they will have more ships turning over to oil.
Again, you have to remember that this bunker coal will have to compete with Continental bunker coal. There is no special virtue in our bunker coal, and a great many ships bunker on the Continent with Continental coal. If business is conducted by coalowners according to the picture drawn by the right hon. Member for St. Ives, Heaven help this country! No Bill like this will save us. Only Socialism will save us. The right hon. Member quoted the case of Antwerp and the price of coal there, as compared with the price at the Port of London, but it is notorious that there has been a great deal of weak selling, with semibankrupt stocks of coal, and with the market very abnormal, and that is probably the explanation of those prices.
There is also this point to be made, that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the coalowners from giving the same advantage to bunker coal as to export coal. Have not the shipping interests got sufficient influence with the coal-owners to be able to point out to them that they are being hardly treated and that these losses are occurring in British ports, if they find that such is the case? As I say, as I read the Bill, it is only permissive, and they could give the same advantage to bunker coal as to export coal. All these things are raised up as a kind of bogy. I hope they are bogies, and I believe they are bogies.
I am waiting with great interest to hear what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to say with regard to the safeguards that I know he has considered very carefully in order to prevent these terrible things happening. My right hon. Friend, as President of the Board of Trade, is the father of British shipping. I believe he is a kindly father, and I believe that if our ships are driven to bunker in Hamburg or Antwerp, and if the shopkeepers of Hull and Grimsby and other places lose their trade—

Mr. BLINDELL: You will hear about it in Hull too.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member always seems to think we are talking about a tariff on potatoes. The Government would hear from me very soon if these terrible things happened in Hull, and my right hon. Friend knows that, and he is prepared also for the representatives of the trimmers, for whom the right hon. Member for St. Ives has discovered some affection—

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Life-long.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: —and for the wharfingers, the men who assist the docking of the ships, and all those poor fellows who, the right hon. Member for St. Ives has suddenly discovered, will be hard hit. I welcome my right hon. Friend's interest in these shore workers, shopkeepers, and others, because I have heard him on other occasions declaring that they are most unreasonable in their demands on the unfortunate shipowners. But this point has been overlooked by the three hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken. Is there not in the Bill a right of appeal by people who are aggrieved under the Bill? Are there not investigations to be made? Can they not, in the last resort, go direct to the Board of Trade? Cannot Parliamentary action be taken? All these things can be done, but under the Five Counties Scheme none of these things could be done, and that was the mischief of it. We could only raise complaints against the Five Counties Scheme, when the right hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Commodore King) was at the Ministry of Mines, as an act of grace, and he made inquiries and in due course got a reply from those who worked that scheme. Here it is totally different. This is a Government scheme, and if these things happen, we can apply for relief. If I thought that the case made out by the hon. Member for Grimsby and the right hon. Member for St. Ives was a real reflection of the facts, I would vote for the Amendment without hesitation.

Mr. FOOT: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I certainly would. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has, I think, been in one short Parliament with me, but he should know that I should vote for anything that I thought was right, even if
the best Government which we have ever had sitting on that bench was not in existence.

Mr. FOOT: I believe them were two Parliaments in which I had the honour of serving with the hon. and gallant Member. When we voted together, I always thought he was right, but now I do not know!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If I thought these things would happen to the British fishing industry—because we export a great deal more coal from Hull than they do from Grimsby, and we bunker many more ships at Hull than do Grimsby and Immingham put together—I would join in defeating the Government on this clause, and indeed on the whole Bill, if necessary; but I do not think these things will happen, because I believe the coalowners are not going to be so stupid as they are made out to be, because I believe that the safeguards in the Bill will operate, and because I believe my right hon. Friend is just as much exercised for the prosperity of the shipping industry as is the hon. Member for Grimsby. As long as he is President of the Board of Trade, I am sure he will see that none of these disabilities apply. Therefore, I intend to support the Government on this Amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am sure that, brilliant though the speeches have been on this side of the House, none of the speeches could have afforded my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade so much uneasiness as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthv). The hon. and gallant Member may talk about bogies, but he knows there is no bogy here, and he knows perfectly well there is a very real problem to be faced.
The whole of the first part of his speech was an argument in favour of the Amendment rather than against it. He says there is to be no discrimination against British bunker coal in favour of export coal in foreign ports. Then why is there any objection to accepting the Amendment? If there is not going to be any difference between the prices charged at Goole, Hull and Immingham for coal for bunkering ships, either British or foreign, and coal bunkers at the Hook of Holland,
or Helsingfors, or Flushing, or Rotterdam, then there is surely no case for the right hon. Gentleman getting up and saying that this Amendment is unnecessary, and if it is unnecessary, we may as well have it. But if, on the other hand, their fears, quite obvious under the heavy humour of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, that there will be damage done to the bunker trade, are real fears, we had better have the words in the Bill now, so that when there is discrimination exercised bunker coal shall be treated as export coal.
In regard to the ports, we have not been influenced in this matter mainly by shipowners and the Chamber of Shipping. We have been influenced because of representations made by those who handle this trade in the ports, not merely by those who handle bunkers in the ports, either ordinary foreign trade or coastwise traffic, but because of the trawlers also. I beg the House to give weight to these points. Every port in the land is exercised in its mind about this matter, and when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade puts up his usual arguments, I cannot find them convincing. He says that all that is designed under this clause is to sell coal at the European or world price. Surely that cannot carry conviction. Surely his mind is too good and clear to be influenced by his own statement.
If there is to be a larger export of British coal in Europe, it must be through one of two things. It must either find a new market somewhere, which does not appear on the surface at the present time, or it must undercut the price or coal that is competing with it. There is no possibility of enlarging the market unless you are able to lower the price. If that be so, the lower the price for export coal goes, the greater the discrimination, unless this Amendment is accepted, which will be shown against coal shipped into bunkers in our own trawlers or for our own ships here. Take my own port of Leith. This is what happens there. Leith is a fishing port, not one of the biggest, but a considerable one, and I have here a telegram from the Secretary of the Trawlowners Association there, in the following terms:
Three hundred thousand tons coal shipped annually Leith Granton trawlers bunkers.
That is the amount of the trade there, and they have to compete with the trawlers to which the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has referred. Take the trade in bunkers. That is a trade that has been steadily going up this last year or two. Our bunker trade in 1926 for coastwise traffic was 112,512 tons and for foreign traffic 205,203 tons, or a total of 317,715 tons. Last year, 1929, it was 163,180 tons coastwise and 218,083 tons foreign trade, or a total of 381,263 tons bunker trade in the Port of Leith alone. Is it to be wondered at that those who handle this traffic are in the gravest alarm at a possible diversion of that trade? Let me read to the House a typical letter which I have received from one of those engaged in the traffic. This is the view of a practical man, and it is a letter from a shipowner who is daily engaged in this business. He says:
There can, of course, be no question that steamers requiring bunkers will be influenced as to their choice of a bunkering station by the price at which they can get the coals. For instance, German coals are always in good supply at the Hook of Holland, and that port is also in many ways convenient and cheap, and is in keen competition with British ports for bunkering purposes.
6.0 p.m.
If that is so now, what is to be the effect if we not only have to compete in bunker trade with German coal, but with British coal, sold in those ports at an artificially low price because of this particular Bill? It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his arguments about this matter. If they are going to increase the export of coal, they will have to lower the price. If they do not do that, they will not increase their markets. If they do that, unless they make sure that there is no discrimination used against the British bunkering trade, we shall have sorry results for unemployment all round the ports of the land, including the port of Hull. I can imagine the kind of speech which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull would have made about these proposals if the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) had brought it in last year. I beg the President of the Board of Trade at this last moment to bring an open mind to this matter, and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have already explained to the House in the Debate on
the preceding Amendment the reasons why we must regard this as an important point, and why we must adhere to the view which we have taken. I can only repeat that that remains our view. So far as I could, I have covered the ground in the reply to the previous Amendment, but I should like to try and deal with one or two of the points which have been raised in this Debate, which has covered a pretty wide ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and also to some extent my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), put the case for the fishing industry, and indicated how unfortunate it would be if by any chance they were placed at a disadvantage in having to bunker elsewhere. I want to assure the hon. Members that there is no consideration of that kind before us in this Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: The point is that if the price is lowered to foreign trawlers, that will be unfair to our men.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I did not suggest that our vessels would go to foreign ports.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am coming to the questions which the hon. Members raised. The condition in the ports is quite plainly a subject which is very far removed from, or at all events cannot be dealt with, in the limits of this Amendment. One hon. Member said he did not want to see the conditions of the men employed in this country brought down to the level of conditions abroad, but that is a matter for international labour regulations. It is not a matter which we can properly deal with here; all that we are trying to do is to secure that coal is sold at an economic price. A large part of the argument has turned on the point which I endeavoured to make on an earlier Amendment, and the constant suggestion that this device for facilitating the export of coal is designed to place that coal on European markets at something less than European price. The hon. Member for Leith has just repeated that argument, and argued that, in fact, there would be some form of subsidy in the strict sense, that British coal would be exported and sold at a price undercutting the European price, and that only in that way should we be getting the market. If a proper analysis is made of this, that is to a large extent the very evil that this Bill is designed to cure.
There is the very recent experience of placing coal from certain export districts in this country, from Northumberland and Durham, on the Belgian market at prices below the prices obtaining in the coalfield of South Wales, because in one case you had some form of order or regulation, while in the other you had unregulated competition between British exporters. It is to deal with a situation of that kind, both at home and abroad, that this Bill is designed. I cannot make it too plain that this device, in so far as it will be used, is designed to enable us to compete at the European price, and, unless we can compete at the European price, we shall not get that trade. But if we can compete at that price, then beyond dispute the quantity of the coal exported from this country will be the important consideration. Side by side with that argument, hon. Members have suggested some very large suggestions of differentiation in price, and they have founded that suggestion upon the Five Counties Scheme, which was able to give a levy ranging up to 3s. 6d. a ton. The conditions there may be so far regarded as exceptional, because, as I pointed out earlier in the Debate, they have an enormous inland trade on which to impose that levy, and have only from 8 to 10 per cent. of export trade, which they have increased in recent times. That is not a state of affairs which obtains in any other export district in the country.
While I cannot for a single moment indicate the kind of levy which would be imposed if this is ever used, or the assistance which will be given to facilitate the sale of that class of coal, I would be inclined to say that it cannot be on the scale of the Five Counties Scheme. I do not exclude the possibility of this being done nationally by the owners, although that is not provided for in this legislation, but let the House remember that, so far as the Bill is concerned—and that is all that is before us, because we have no control over what the owners may do in the ordinary practice of the trade so long as the trade is not nationally controlled. That is not touched, but so far as the Bill is concerned there can now be no control over any voluntary national levy. That is precluded under the Bill as it is now. This consideration really forms
the basis of the reply to hon. Members, who seem to think that the shipping industry will be prejudiced unless the export and bunker prices are assimilated. The real reply, perhaps the only reply, to the defence which I have offered on a previous Amendment is surely this. I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) claims special consideration for shipping. That was not the way, unless I expressed myself badly, in which I intended to put the case, but in practice, in my view, that would be the effect of this Amendment if it were carried, because the only practical result would be that the price of bunker coal is assimilated to export coal in so far as the sale of the coal is facilitated by this levy in the districts.
My right hon. Friend quoted very recent prices from the north-east coast, and he concluded by saying that he really could not say that these prices are higher or lower as between bunker and export. That may be on the figures of to-day. I do not profess to be an expert on the shipping industry or on bunker prices. All I have professed from beginning to end of this Bill is not more than a reasonable knowledge of the conditions gathered from a very wide circle who know the industry, and all sections of the trade. My information is to the effect that, taking similar grades of coal over broad periods of time, bunker prices are generally higher than export prices. Here is the position which my right hon. Friend made, that he wishes to insert a provision under which the present trade practice would be altered and the shipping industry given a privilege which would not be extended to any other industry. In my view that interpretation cannot be disputed. He may contend that practice is to be regretted, and so far as the sale of export coal is facilitated, the bunker price and the export price ought to be on the same basis. That is not the state of affairs at the present time, and I do not think you could really give that privilege to shipping in justice to this Bill unless you were to do it over the whole range of industry, and that is not suggested.
I beg the House to remember that it is not the case that this device will be used to facilitate the sale of export coal to all markets. That has never been
suggested. It will only be used to facilitate the sale of coal to those markets which require this form of assistance. It may be large or small, but at any rate, that is the proposal of the Bill. If we cannot assimilate the prices in this way, it remains true that bunker coal may be regarded as a class of coal under the Bill and could itself be assisted; as indeed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) reminded the House, it may be a class of coal quite entitled to special consideration, either in this respect or in regard to the quota, from time to time. I have expressly refused to mislead the House by saying that it will necessarily be a class of coal to be specially treated under this provision, and it would be improper for me or for any Minister in charge of the Bill to say anything of the kind. The class of coal for that purpose could only be determined when circumstances demand that delimitation and that assistance.
That is a possibility under the Bill, and as a matter of fact, if we were in danger of the loss of that bunker trade, in my judgment it would be wrong and foolish beyond description if the coalowners were to take any action which might result in the reduction of that trade. Further, there are safeguards also as regards the consumers. If it is suggested that they are in any way prejudiced, either in price or in anything which is done under these schemes, which in their view prejudices them unfairly, they have the right to raise it through the Investigation Committee, and if they can convince that committee that there is substance in their complaint, the matter proceeds automatically to arbitration and a decision. I cannot possibly agree to a provision in this Bill which, however well intentioned, and for which my right hon. Friend argued so ably, would have the effects I have described. The suggestion that is involved would in practice alter the existing custom of the trade, and put this bunker coal in an exceptional position as compared with other classes of coal. I have endeavoured to explain to hon. Members opposite that I have met the points they have put in the other stages of the Bill. The Government must regard the question now before the House as an important matter, and we must adhere to our position in the Division Lobby, but I hope that the
explanation which I have given, which in my judgment affords adequate safeguards, will enable us to get this clause

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I am bound to say that the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman carried little conviction. I have seldom heard a Debate which has been so completely one-sided. The speeches made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Sir B. Chadwick), the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) brought forward most cogent arguments, and I am quite sure that any Member, in any quarter of the House. who has listened to the whole Debate. without having a closed mind, must have come to the conclusion that the balance of argument rests emphatically on the side of those who criticise the proposal in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade has repeated that all that this provision in the Bill purports to do is to secure that British coal shall be sold at the European price. What is meant by "the European price"? When the matter is examined economically, one sees that there is no such thing as a European price. It is wholly a question of geography. There is one price for coal in one part of Europe and another price in another part of Europe, and the competition of the British coalfields as against the Polish or German coalfields or the French coalfields is wholly a question of the proximity of a market to a coalfield. It is a question of radius, of distance. When the Royal Commission went into this matter, it was clearly shown to us that it was wholly a question of geographical areas. In certain places British coal can compete without difficulty and can command the market; in other markets, which are closer to their coalfields, Ruhr or Polish coal can command the market; and then there are the intervening areas, where competition is exceedingly keen, and within those areas are some of the ports.
The prices which are fixed in the market are determined not solely by the price at which German or Polish coal is sold, but also by the price at which British coal is sold. The British price is a determining factor in the various prices of coal in different parts of Europe. To take an extreme case, if we gave a sub-
sidy of 5s. a ton on every ton coal exported to Europe, the European price would be greatly affected, and in many markets of Europe prices would be lowered by the subsidy we had given. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "the European price," as though it were something absolute, to which this country must conform, his argument does not carry conviction. But, in any case, that point, if it were relevant at all, was relevant on the previous Amendment, and not on this Amendment. Let us assume for a moment that a subsidy is to be given an order to enable British coal to be sold at what the right hon. Gentleman calls "the European price." The question we are now discussing is what would be the effect of the subsidy upon British bunker coal and upon our ports, which live very largely by the bunkering which they carry on. He said the suggestion of 3s. a ton must be an exaggeration of the amount involved, because we are simply on a district basis and not on a national basis. The answer to that is that the Yorkshire scheme will remain under this Bill and will be given the advantage of legislative authority and compulsion. If it has been possible hitherto for Yorkshire to give a 3s. bounty on its export coal, it will also be possible in the future. That 3s. has been granted. I do not know what the figure is at this moment. [Interruption.] Oh, it is now 3s. The difference, so far as Yorkshire coal is concerned, will still continue. Scotland will be able to subsidise Fife coal by putting a levy not only on Fife coal but Lanarkshire coal; and a figure of 3s. for certain classes of coal is, I submit, no exaggeration.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says we should be putting the shipowner in a position of unfair privilege in relation to the other industries of the country: that we should be securing to him that his coal should be free from the levy and be given a subsidy, while the coal for steel manufacturers and for cotton manufacturers had no such advantage. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, that was his argument, that we are putting this coal in a special class; but, is the House seriously asked to believe that the British shipowner is competing as regards the price of his coal with steelworks or cotton manufacturers? A
British ship is not competing with a British steelmaster or a British manufacturer in Birmingham, or wherever it may be. The British ship is competing against the foreign ship, that is where the competition is, and so far from our asking for the British shipowner to be put in a position of privilege, we are only begging the right hon. Gentleman not to put him in a position of disadvantage as compared with the foreign shipowner to whom we are going to present a bounty, it may be of 3s. or 2s., in the price of coal which he is able to purchase in his world-wide competition with our shipping.
The position is perfectly clear. The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech which was really relevant to the previous Amendment but not to this one. There are two perfectly simple questions: Will there be a subsidy, or will there not? He says that possibly there may be and possibly there may not be. If there is not to be, then there is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted; but if there is to be, the fact remains that coal which is bought for bunkers abroad will be cheaper than coal which is bought for bunkers here. That is certain on the facts, and the result must inevitably be that our ports will be put at a disadvantage and all those who gain a livelihood from the bunkering trade will be under a disadvantage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All that could be done now, but in practice it is done only in very few cases.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It might be a question whether Parliament should forbid it. Now we are asked to make it legislative, and to give coalowners power to compel everybody to pay those levies. At present there is no obligation upon any mine-owner to pay this levy at all, but we are going to compel him to do it by Act of Parliament, and that may lead to a much larger extension of this scheme. Then there is this further point, upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch, a point made with so much cogency by the right hon. Member for St. Ives. A ship comes to a port in England and takes on board coal. That coal will have two prices. The coal which is put into the bunkers in order to enable that ship to make its voyage is to be at the ordinary normal price, plus a levy. The coal which is to be taken in the same ship to a foreign port to be sold to foreign ship-
owners is to have no levy charged on it and is to be given a subsidy. Is it conceivable that that plan can be defended? No wonder the right hon. Gentleman, with his acute mind, did not even venture to give an answer to that question.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman said that in any case, when this Bill becomes law, the coalowners will be able to declare that this is a special class of coal and to say that the levy shall not be made upon it or that the subsidy may apply to it, one or the other, or both. I have no doubt that is so. He says that coalowners in this country will be fully alive to the circumstances, and will realise that it would be a great advantage to their trade and to our ports if they were to do what this Bill as it now stands enables them to do. But he could not give any pledge. He said he would be wrong in saying that they would exclude bunker coal from the levy and would treat it as though it were export coal, although he said that in his opinion the industry would be wrong and foolish—those were his words—if they did not do so.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I explain that point? All I said was that, if there were any danger of the loss of that trade, bunker coal could be classified for special consideration under this proposal, just like the coal for iron and steel or any other class of coal. I cannot say that will be the case, but I do go so far as to say that the industry will take care not to lose the trade if those facilities are required to keep it.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said it would be "wrong and foolish" if they were not to classify it separately if there were any prospect of such a loss. That is what we ask. When the Bill comes into law the right hon. Gentleman will have to approve the schemes. Parliament will still have a certain measure of control through the Government of the day, because he is responsible to Parliament, and Parliament will watch carefully what is done. In view of the very strong feeling which is evident in the House, and the strength of the arguments, I venture to ask whether he could not give us some assurance that he will safeguard the interests of our ports in the manner which has been desired. If he will do so that will certainly influence our course of action.

Mr. GRAHAM: Will my right hon. Friend permit me to reply at once? That has always been a consideration which has been before the Government and before me, very clearly, at the Board of Trade. I have always tried to make it plain to the House that I must bear all these considerations in mind, and I can give my right hon. Friend complete assurance on that point.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand, then, that the right hon. Gentleman will make sure that the evils which have been prognosticated as possible, in so far as there is a reasonable chance of their occurring, will be safeguarded against by him, that he will not permit such an arrangement to be made under this Bill that our British ports will be put at a financial disadvantage compared with other ports with regard to bunkering coal and with regard to the other points raised? If I understood that from the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think I misunderstood him—

Mr. GRAHAM: The position is that we have to approve the schemes, that we have to satisfy ourselves that the machinery of all the schemes is appropriate, and protect all classes of demand; and side by side with that I must use such influence as I possess, in constant touch with the industry, to see that those abuses do not arise. I may say that, all along the owners have never suggested that there should be other than a very clear understanding that the whole object is to safeguard legitimate interests. It is their advantage to do so.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am sure, then, that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that the coal which is sold to British ships for bunkers shall not be at a disadvantage compared with similar coal exported for similar purposes for either British ships or foreign ships; and that being so, I will consult with my hon. friends about the course which we will take.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has any power to do this. I would put two points to the House. It has been the immemorial custom of the House in framing legislation to frame it in a form which will carry out what is proposed.
Over and over again we have had instances where the House has been told that the Minister would take action in a particular way, and it has been said, "If that is the action which you propose to take, put it in the Bill. You give an undertaking to the House, but you may be out of office to-morrow and there may be somebody else in your place." [Interruption.] This is not a dialectical point. It is a regular constitutional way of doing things. If you want an Act of Parliament to have a certain effect, the proper thing to do is to see that the Act of Parliament does it, and it is a novel proposition deliberately to leave out of an Act the words which will give you the security, and rely upon an undertaking by a Minister that he will exercise his discretion in a particular way. This undertaking operates in two ways. The President, in the first place, has to approve the scheme. The scheme need not provide in the first instance for a levy to subsidise exports. I do not understand that it would. make that provision, because the President of the Board of Trade said that we should not know, to start with, whether it would be required or not, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is a thing which the coalowners will have to decide as they go along.
They may find that no such provision is necessary, and they may find that they are not called upon to meet competition for which the scheme is supposed to provide. The scheme will not provide that there shall be a levy upon coal in a certain district, and that it shall be applied for a particular purpose. That will not be the case. What will happen will be that the scheme will give a general permissive power to the coalowners to impose a levy at some future time for such purposes as they think fit. That is the scheme. That scheme comes to the President of the Board of Trade, and he may approve of it, or he may disapprove of it. Therefore, the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House is really quite valueless for the purpose of making proper provision in these schemes, and I hope that no one will run away with the impression that what has been promised is a possible way of giving effect to the intentions of this House. In these circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will be carried.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The President of the Board of Trade has given to the House a promise that steps will be taken to see that the state of affairs which we fear will not take place. As far as the rest of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I must express my disappointment, and also the disappointment of many hon. Members on this side of the House. The President of the Board of Trade gave a long dissertation upon what could not possibly take place, and what was not at all likely to happen. Let me deal with what is actually going on at the present time. At the present moment, under the Five Counties Scheme, coal can be bought in the ports of Belgium and Northern France at a ridiculously low price—lower, in fact, than it can be bought in this country. At the present moment, passenger boats are bunkering on the other side at foreign ports with British coal, and a very large number of British steamers are beginning to take their coal on the other side instead of taking it at our own ports where they normally used to take on British coal. The effect of this Bill will be to give legal sanction to what is now being done under the Five Counties Scheme. It will give legal sanction to that practice, and the only result will be the establishment of a line of coaling stations along the whole coast of Western Europe to catch British ships, and sell to them bunker coal at a lower price than they can buy it at the bunkering ports in this country. That is already being done at the Hook of Holland and staithes are being erected at Flushing to catch vessels coming from Antwerp for the purpose of selling them bunker coal there.
The result will be that a vessel coming from the River Plate to Antwerp and on her next voyage taking coal out from Cardiff, instead of bunkering at Cardiff, will drop into staithes at Flushing, take her bunker coal at Flushing and proceed to Cardiff to take up her cargo. The shipowner will not suffer, because he will get his coal at a lower price, and his vessel will have something inside her to keep her quiet if she meets with a gale. The coalowner will not suffer, because he gets a subsidy. There is only one person who will have to pay the piper and that is the coal consumer, who has to pay an
additional price for his coal in order to subsidise the coal which is sent abroad. What applies at the Hook of Holland and Flushing will also apply at Dunkirk or Havre. Vessels will take their bunkers before they leave continental ports, and in the long run this kind of thing is bound to have an adverse effect upon the trade of the ports of this country where those vessels normally used to bunker.
The case of the shipping trade has been very ably put by several hon. Members below the Gangway. What we are complaining of will adversely affect the British trawlers; in fact, it will very seriously affect British trawler owners who are now suffering from competition with German coal. The Germans have a lower standard of living, and the lower wages which the Germans, the Dutch, and the Danish fishermen are prepared to accept on trawlers going to the Northern fishing grounds and coming back to sell their catches in Hull enable them to sell their fish at a price with which a British trawler cannot possibly compete. This Bill will put a premium on British trawlers going to continental coaling stations in order to take their bunker coal. There is one other additional fact which ought to be of considerable interest to hon. Members who represent Banffshire, Aberdeen and Moray. In future their constituents, when they see a vessel flying a foreign flag trawling in the Moray Firth, will have the satisfaction of knowing that she is being fired with subsidised British coal. Further, they will know that the coal with which the fishermen at home are attempting to keep their home fires burning have paid a levy to enable the foreign poacher in their waters to get his coal at less than cost.

Mr. BOOTHBY: We cannot leave this question where it is at the present time. I am sure that it is the opinion of an enormous majority of the people that British shipowners ought not to be unfairly penalised. That is a point upon which we all feel very strongly. We ought not to subsidise foreigners, and, at the same time, require our shipowners to pay the full price for British coal. Nobody wants that to happen, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is really in a position to carry out the undertaking which he has given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The posi-
tion of the Liberal party on this Amendment is more extraordinary than ever, and we want to know how long they propose to play with the House of Commons over this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen made two brilliant speeches, and presented a number of cogent arguments in favour of this Amendment. After that the President of the Board of Trade said that he would certainly undertake to use his influence, as far as he could, to see that British shipowners were not unfairly penalised as against their foreign rivals and competitors. We have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really in a position to carry out any undertaking on this matter at all. I do not think he is. I do not believe he is in a position, in connection with any particular scheme, to give such an undertaking one way or the other. I think that is beyond his power under the terms of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself represents a constituency in which there is a large number of fishing ports, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any authority to carry out the undertaking which he gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen.

Mr. EBENEZER EDWARDS: I should not have risen in this Debate had it not been that, in my opinion, the speeches which have been made on this Amendment have not really dealt with the subject of the Amendment. The question before us is that of facilities for the sale of coal, and this Amendment seeks to restrict those facilities; in other words, while the object of the Bill is to assist the mining industry, this Amendment is put forward in the interests of a distinct industry apart from that of mining. The point that we have to face, and the reason for the introduction of the Bill, is that, as must be recognised on all sides, the coal trade of this country has lost its place and prestige in the markets of the world. Starting from that basis, we have to remember that there is clear proof that, while in 1913 this country was supplying 12.9 per cent. of the world's consumption, we dropped in 1925 to 8.5 per cent., in 1927 to 7.8 per cent., and in 1928 to 7.4 per cent.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with the Bill as a whole,
but what is before the House is a particular Amendment to deal with the bunkering of ships.

Mr. EDWARDS: The proposed Amendment will restrict the facilities of the employers to carry on this industry efficiently. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) has indicated the price that will have to be paid in the port of Newcastle. He knows as well as I do that prices at Newcastle have dropped from 23s. 11d. in 1921 to 10s. 11d., so that, in other words, our men have been levying on their bodies in this industry, and facilities are needed for making the price within the industry at least sufficient to give our men a living. I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I have listened to this Debate with considerable interest. It affects many places of which I have considerable knowledge, not from the point of view of the big shipowner, but from the point of view of one who has been in continual touch over his whole life with a large number of small ports, and there is no reason why their point of view should not be put to the House. There is another point on which I desire first to comment, and that is the amazing position which has been taken up by the President of the Board of Trade. It is an amazing position even for him. Just now he informed the House that he would do his best to see that nothing happened in the way of dangers of the kind which have been illustrated from all quarters of the House, but it is not in his power to do anything. All that he can do is to use his good offices, and say to these committees, "Please do not do this," or "Please do not do that." What we are afraid of, and what we wish by this Amendment to prevent, is the possibility of subsidising coal so that foreigners, or, for that matter, British ships bunkering in foreign ports, should be able to buy coal more cheaply than they can buy it in their own home ports. In other words, we do not wish to do anything to help the foreign port against the British port. We do not ask for any particular help for the British port; we know that it would be perfectly hopeless to do that with the President of the Board of Trade; but we do ask him not to weight
the balance against the British port, as we are afraid may happen under this clause.
Our fears are not groundless. Earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to help forward the export trade in coal, that he wanted to get the trade away to those foreign ports so that they could get coal there on easy terms. Again, when he spoke just now of the export trade to markets which require this kind of assistance, the kind of assistance to which he was referring was of a very simple kind. It will enable, under this particular provision of the Bill, not necessarily a subsidy—it need not be called by that name—but an assistance of, it may be, as has been pointed out from below the Gangway, several shillings a ton, to be given to this coal which goes abroad for the bunkering of vessels in Hamburg, Antwerp, or any other foreign port.
That is a point which I desire to raise with the President of the Board of Trade himself, but there is another point in connection with this Amendment which I think might fairly be considered. We have round the coasts of this country a large number of very small harbours and ports—places like Brixham, Falmouth, St. Ives and Penzance—which, during recent years, as far as the coastal trade is concerned, have been suffering from very bad conditions. I think that theirs is the last appeal which could be neglected by anyone with a knowledge of these small ports, with all their difficulties, such as have been pointed out by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E.

Brown) with regard to his own town, or Grimsby, or the other small ports which I have mentioned. It is quite conceivable that, under the Bill as it now stands, their conditions may be made worse. All that we ask is that the Government should accept this Amendment, which will do something to secure that, at any rate, the balance is not put further against them than it is at the present time.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I agree with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that we cannot leave this matter exactly where it is. Several very pertinent questions have been addressed to the President of the Board of Trade by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), and not only have those questions received no reply whatever, but during the last part of the Debate there has been on the Front Bench no representative of the Board of Trade at all. I think it is treating this House with a great deal less than courtesy that, on an Amendment which is admitted in all quarters of the House to be a very important one, not only has no answer been given to these questions, but the Board of Trade has not even troubled to have a representative on the Front Bench. We all pay tribute to the courtesy with which the President of the Board of Trade has treated the House during these Debates, and we regret very much that he should have lapsed from it on such an important Amendment as this.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 271.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Richard George
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd'., Hexham)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Allen, Lt.-col. Sir William (Armagh)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Culverwell, C. T. Bristol, West)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Aske, Sir Robert
Carver, Major W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkinson, C.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beaumont, M. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Chamberiain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. Kensington, S.)


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dixey, A. C.


Berry, Sir George
Chapman, Sir S.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Eden, Captain Anthony


Blindell, James
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colfox, Major William Philip
England, Colonel A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Boyce, H. L.
Colville, Major D. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bracken, B.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cowan, D. M.
Fleiden, E. B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cranbourne, Viscount
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount
Savery, S. S.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simms, Major-General J.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Skelton, A. N.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam).


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smithers, Waldron


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hanbury, C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thomson, Sir F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, A. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Harbord. A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)
Train, J.


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hurd, Percy A.
Rantoul, Sir Gervais S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Iveagh, Countess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Withers, Sir John James


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Womersley, W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir kingsley


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. sir Hilton


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Major I.



Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Long, Major Eric
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Herriotts, J.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hllisbro')
Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Alpass, J. H.
Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Daggar, George
Hollins, A.


Angell, Norman
Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel


Arnott, John
Dalton, Hugh
Horrabin, J. F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Ayles, Walter
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Isaacs, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Devlin, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dickson, T.
John, William (Rhondda. West)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dukes, C.
Johnston, Thomas


Barr, James
Duncan, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bellamy, Albert
Edmunds, J. E.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Freeman, Peter
Kennedy, Thomas


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benson, G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kinley, J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gibbins, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Knight, Holford


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gill, T. H.
Lang, Gordon


Bowen, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gossling, A. G.
Lathan, G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gould, F.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bromfield, William
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawrence, Susan


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brooke, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Brothers, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Leach, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lees, J.B


Burness, F. G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lindley, Fred W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hardie, George D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Logan, David Gilbert


Cameron, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Longbottom, A. W.


Cape, Thomas
Haycock, A. W.
Longden, F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hayday, Arthur
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Lowth, Thomas


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Lunn, William


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)




MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Pole, Major D. G.
Strauss, G. R.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.


McElwee, A.
Price, M. P.
Sutton, J. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mackinder, W.
Raynes, W. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


McKinlay, A.
Richards, R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacLaren, Andrew
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Thurtle, Ernest


McShane, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinker, John Joseph


Mansfield, W.
Ritson, J.
Toole, Joseph


March, S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tout, W. J.


Marcus, M.
Romeril, H. G.
Townend, A. E.


Markham, S. F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Marley, J.
Rowson, Guy
Turner, B.


Marshall, Fred
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vaughan, D. J.


Mathers, George
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Viant, S. P.


Matters, L. W.
Sanders, W. S.
Walkden, A. G.


Melville, Sir James
Sandham, E.
Walker, J.


Messer, Fred
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Middleton, G.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wellhead, Richard C.


Mills, J. E.
Scurr, John
Watkins, F. C.


Milner, Major J.
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Montague, Frederick
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Morley, Ralph
Sherwood, G. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shield, George William
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Mort, D. L.
Shillaker, J. F.
West, F. R.


Moses, J. J. H.
Shinwell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Muff, G.
Sinkinson, George
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Wise, E. F.


Paling, Wilfrid
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Palmer, E. T.
Sorensen, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Perry, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.



Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Smith.

CLAUSE 4.—(Effect of schemes on contracts.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, after the word "not," to insert the words "unless the terms of the contract otherwise provide."
There will be, I think, no opposition to this Amendment. It is really one which we are inserting in order to meet the point which was made on the Committee stage by the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman). The question arose on clause 4 (1), and he asked me to consider the case where a contract had been made in contemplation of some legislation of this sort and there had consequently been inserted a clause in the contract that if any legislation was to be passed curtailing production the contract either entirely or to some extent was to be voided. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether, in my opinion, the contract would prevail over the terms of this sub-section. I stated
that my opinion then was, as it now is, that the Sub-section would not prevent the free operation of the contract, but the point is one of importance, and it is clearly desirable to remove any ambiguity that there may be. Consequently, we have thought it desirable to meet the point by putting in words to make it perfectly clear that the scheme of the Bill is to leave absolutely untouched, and uninterfered with, the provisions of the contract.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I am much obliged for the hon. and learned Member's explanation, and I agree with his views.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Committees of investigation.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 44, to leave out from the word "Parliament" to the end of the clause.
This Amendment is really consequential on something which follows. It was suggested to us by the other side that it was very undesirable to provide that the Arbitration Act should not apply except in so far as it might be applied by the regulations. It is desirable that some machinery should be devised with that end in view. On clause 16 we have a series of Amendments to deal with this situation, and to make the Arbitration Act apply subject to the limitation which is therein contained. In the meantime, we propose to take out of this particular Sub-section the words:
and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply with respect to any arbitration under this section except in so far as they may be applied by the said regulations.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad that the Government have met us to some extent. The Bill, as introduced, barred the Arbitration Act altogether. At an earlier stage I pointed out how extremely inconvenient that course was. The Government are now allowing the Arbitration Act to apply, but in the later Amendments to which the Attorney-General has called attention they have made a provision which half nullifies the application of the Act. If its application were allowed completely, then not only could a case be stated and come before a Judge of the High Court for arbitration, but if the Judge gave a decision which was not acquiesced in by the parties to the arbitration, there would be a right of appeal. For some quite unexplained reason, the Government have altered the legal procedure which has been established for the last 10 or 20 years, and have chosen to say that the decision of the Court of First Instance should be final, and that there would be no appeal. While I am grateful to the Government for having allowed the Arbitration Act to apply at all, I reserve my right when we come to the later consequential Amendments to try to get the House to alter what is now proposed and to allow the litigant his full right of appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GEORGE JONES: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
(11) Any person or body of persons who has made a complaint to a committee of investigation and is aggrieved at any act or omission of the body charged with the administration of the scheme in relation to which such complaint was made, or of the committee of investigation to which the complaint was made, or of the Board of Trade in reference to such complaint may require the matter to be referred to a single independent arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between such person or body of persons and the body charged as aforesaid, and in default of agreement in England and Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England and in Scotland by the Lord Justice Clerk, and the persons having power under the Scheme to give effect to the decision shall comply therewith and exercise their powers under the scheme in conformity with the decision.
The arbitrator so appointed shall have power to award costs against the party unsuccessful in such arbitration, and if the costs be awarded against the body charged with administering the scheme they shall be considered an expense within Section three (2) (g) of this Act.
The reasons for this Amendment may be put shortly. Any person who makes a complaint to a committee of investigation and is dissatisfied, would have the right to appeal to an independent arbiter. I am not at all wedded to this form of words, nor am I concerned as to the manner in which the arbitrator is appointed. I am concerned that in the case of a person who makes a complaint there shall be a right of appeal. The tribunals are to be new bodies, and many of the men who will be on them will be dealing, possibly for the first time, with the kind of problems which will come before them. Certainly those problems will be extremely complicated, technical and difficult to deal with. Recognising that the new tribunals will have very difficult questions to deal with, I think that a right of appeal should be given on terms which the Government think suitable. This clause deals more or less specifically with two classes of case, and I should like to call attention to the nature of the provisions. Subsection (6) says:
If…a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests, it shall be the duty of the committee to report the matter to the Board of Trade.
Then, if the Board of Trade, after considering the report and consulting such persons as appear to them to be affected, agree with the committee, the Board may take certain steps to enforce the recom-
mendations. It will be noticed that if in fact the committee of investigation find the complaint ill-founded, there is no appeal at all. The committee of investigation may be hopelessly wrong, and may have entirely misdirected themselves, but if they have found that the complaint is ill-founded, there is no means of putting it right. That is a blemish in the provisions. Incidentally, I do not say the remainder of the provisions are very satisfactory, because if the committee find that the complaint is ill-founded, then the Board of Trade can go on and consult various persons, without giving any opportunity to the person complaining to know what has taken place and to act as may be necessary in regard to it. The person will not even know who are the persons who are to be consulted. There is another provision in Sub-section (8) which also deals with complaints. It says:
If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme is having or is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interests…
then it is provided that the committee can make certain representations to the persons who can put the matter right. Then, if there is a dispute, there is a provision that an independent arbitrator shall be appointed to deal with the matter. The Government, quite properly, have recognised the principle of independent arbitration in that Sub-section.
What I am saying is that, having gone so far, they should go the whole way, and allow a right of appeal in all cases where the party bringing the complaint is not satisfied. If the committee has gone wrong, there is absolutely no right of appeal. Those are the cases dealing with extremely important classes of complaints, and it is most unfortunate that there is no provision made to deal with the committee which goes wrong and rules that there is no cause of complaint when, in fact, there is. I understand the Bill has been largely moulded on the German system, in which there are most elaborate checks and counter-checks. Every decision given is elaborately checked, and I am told by those who are acquainted with the system that those checks and counter-checks have largely contributed to the efficiency and smoothness with which the German system works.
I am not suggesting that the Government should go as far as the German system—I quite appreciate that what is suitable for Germany may not be suitable here—but I ask the Government to bear in mind that the German system has shown that this system of checks is necessary if you are going to get a good, workable Bill. I do not like the Bill, but, if we are to have it, I want to see it given as full a chance as possible, because the prosperity of the coal trade is vital to the country. Therefore, I would suggest that the Government might at least go to this extent and allow an independent arbitrator to decide all questions of dispute in the matters dealt with in the Sub-section. I do not see what objection there can be to it. An unsuccessful person may be ordered to pay the costs. The prospect of paying costs is, at any rate, some inducement to a person to abstain from frivolous appeals. I hope the Government will take the view that this idea of appealing, in regard to new tribunals dealing with this very complicated sort of question, shall be adopted, and that they will accept, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment, so that a committee which has gone wrong may be put right, thus avoiding the great damage that may otherwise ensue.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is an effort to remedy what we consider to be a rather serious defect in the Bill, because at present this appeal to arbitration is entirely one-sided. The object of this Sub-section is that any person who has made a complaint and is aggrieved may require the matter to be referred to a single independent arbitrator. It is complementary to Subsection (8), which says that if, after investigating any complaint, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act is likely to have an effect contrary to public interests, if the matter be not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer the matter to a single independent arbitrator. The committee, under this Bill, is to have the right of referring to an arbiter, but the aggrieved person or persons have no such right, and that is why we say the appeal is very one-sided. There is the power to award costs, which will prevent frivolous appeals, and there
is also power in default of agreement for the Lord Chief Justice in England, and in Scotland the Lord Justice Clerk, to provide an arbiter if he cannot be provided by agreement. If words to this effect can be put into the Bill, it will improve it, and it will do away with what is obviously a one-sided arrangement where the committee have power to go to arbitration if it does not like what goes on but where an aggrieved person has no such right.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment. Consider what the provisions are relating to arbitration. First of all, arbitration is to be provided for with regard to matters arising under the central commission, and the persons who have the right to arbitrate there are, of course, the executive boards, because they are the only persons who have a locus standi in respect of the central scheme. Then you come to the district scheme. There, of course, the persons who have a locus standi are the owners of coal mines, and any owner of a coal mine has a right to claim arbitration if he considers himself aggrieved by a district agreement. Then you come to this clause, where you are dealing with the committee of investigation. Any member of the public who thinks he is paying too much for his coal or has any other grievance, real or imaginary, can put it before a committee of investigation, and, if it seems to them that there is a prima facie case and that the scheme is likely to have some effect which is against the national interest, it can adopt the machinery and start arbitration.
What absolute chaos would result in this situation, that any member of the public, anyone of the 40,000,000 of people living in this country, having put a complaint before a committee of investigation, and the committee of investigation having turned it down, can arbitrate, either with the committee of investigation or with the body charged with the administration of the scheme or with the Board of Trade. It is said that the penalty of paying costs is a sufficient safeguard against wild schemes being arbitrated upon. Do hon. Members really believe that the prospect of having to pay costs is any real bar to a man of
straw, who cannot possibly pay, getting himself into the limelight?
It would be a most hopeless system if, without seeing that anyone lad a locus standi at all, you allowed anyone to come and claim to arbitrate with the Board of Trade or the central or district board or the committee of investigation. You might have millions of arbitrations by all sorts of people. Take the analogy of our private Bill legislation. We do not allow any member of the public to appear and object to proposed legislation. There is a committee that sits to see whether he has a locus standi, that is, whether he is pecuniarily interested and has a real grievance. Take the case of a relator action in the courts. If any member of the public complains about the diversion of a highway or the stopping up of a bridge, a matter with regard to which the public as a whole are interested but he himself is pecuniarily interested more than the public, the Attorney-General, as representing the public, looks into the whole matter to see how serious the complaint is, and, if he thinks it a proper case, he lends his name. Unless he lends his name, the case cannot go on. The analogue of the Attorney-General and the relator action is this committee of investigation. To allow any single member of the public to arbitrate with anyone, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint has been turned down by the committee of investigation, which as to one half consists of consumers, with an independent chairman, is a provision which no Government could possibly contemplate and for which there would be no sort of analogy in the procedure of the House or of the courts or, as far as I know, anywhere else. We have guarded the matter as carefully as we can by setting up the committee of investigation, constituted as it is, and, if we open the door wider and allow any member of the public to arbitrate, we shall be opening the door to grave abuse, and certainly no one of the departmental officials concerned would ever be able to sleep happily in their bed any more. The Amendment is quite impossible.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: I think the House will recognise that the Attorney-General has put some weighty objections to the Sub-section as it stands, but there is a point of substance behind this which he
has not dealt with. The position may arise in which, although the committee are convinced that public interests are being infringed, and although they have made representations which have not been given effect to, the clause merely says they may refer it to arbitration. The real solution is that the word "may" should be taken out, and the word "shall" inserted. Unless that is done, or unless some such provision as this is put in, very likely in a more restricted form, you are going to get a position in which, in spite of representations on the part of the committee, a party in default may, if the committee chooses to take no further action, remain in default and the whole scheme be nullified. I suggest that the Attorney-General should consider at a later stage making this arbitration compulsory while avoiding the difficulty that he has pointed out.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 10.—(Duration of Part I.)

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out the word "thirty-three" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."
I should like to pay a tribute to the President of the Board of Trade, not only for his amazing industry and great ability and the unflagging courtesy with which he has put the Bill before the House, but also for his sincere and conscientious belief that Part I of the Bill will bring untold benefit to certain coal-owners. Many of us cannot share in that belief. We are agreed that it is an experiment and time, and time alone, will show whether the beliefs of the right hon. Gentleman are right or whether the fears which we have expressed on this side of the House are justified. In these circumstances, I hope that the time will be limited to the year 1932; that the Act will not be continued for another year when certain disasters which we foreshadowed may eventuate.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to Second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has said, this Bill is certainly experimental in this sense, that nobody can forecast what the result will be. Al-
though, taking as reasonable a forecast as we can, we believe that Part I of the Bill will be extremely advantageous, we shall be in a better position to say whether it is so or not at some time in the future. We think that by the end of 1932, when two years will have elapsed, it will be a sufficient period to enable us to judge of the working of these schemes. It is plain to every Member of the House that this does not necessarily mean that the Act will come to an end at the end of December, 1932—manifestly it may be, and, if it is working well, it will be continued under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act—but it means that the House will have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation at the end of 1932. We feel so confident that this Measure will by that time justify itself that we are quite prepared rather to welcome the opportunity of bringing it to the House again at that stage in order that it may be continued.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure that the House will join in the tribute which has been paid to the courtesy and the industry of the President of the Board of Trade. I feel that this Amendment deserves more than a passing reference to the characteristic courtesy of the President of the Board of Trade. The Attorney-General has said, with almost pointed truth, that it is difficult to forecast what will happen in the future. This is a modest and an interesting Amendment, and it would have been difficult for anyone who heard the speechs delivered from the Liberal benches on the Second Reading of this Bill to have forecast with certainty that this Amendment would have been moved at this stage. I call it a modest Amendment. because it seems to be a singularly modest conclusion to those speeches. We were told by the leader of that party, who, I regret, is not here to support this Amendment, that this was an incredibly bad Bill. We were told that it was a weed to be cut down, and we were told that the time was now, and that anyone who took a different view would find it very difficult to answer to his constituents. It is a very modest follow up of these protests to move an Amendment which merely alters the period from three years to two years. It is not only modest, but it is interesting.
What is this mysterious period of two years? We thought that originally it was to be three. A period of two years has been selected not with a view to seeing how the amalgamation clauses are going to work, but clearly two years has been selected to see how the amalgamation of those two parties is going to work. I do not know whether at the end of two years that amalgamation is going to be continued by the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, or what will be the precise modus operandi. I understood that if an Amendment was moved, it would be moved to the effect that it should go on for the duration of the Naval Conference. I presume that neither the most optimistic nor the most pessimistic would put that at two years. I am not sure whether we ought not to suggest moving an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Would it not be giving more effect to what is in the mind and to what is the intention of the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment if we said for a period of two years or until a Measure of electoral reform has been passed, whichever shall first happen?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I want to make my contribution to the references to the Liberal party. I want to draw the attention of the Mover of the Amendment to some very stringent remarks which were made by his Leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on this subject about five weeks ago. I am afraid that the hon. Member overlooked these remarks, but to add interest to the story I am going to remind him of those words. This is what the Leader of the Liberal party said:
The right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) does not realise that this is a scheme which is only for the limitation of output for three years. At the end of that time this machinery goes. And we are to upset the whole of the trade by setting up elaborate machinery, for arranging quotas, and buying quotas—because that is what it really means—and all for three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1930; col. 2479, Vol. 235.]
These were moderate, temperate, but strong words. There would have been a good deal more astonishment expressed had it been only for two years. I am convinced that the Mover of this Amendment overlooked this remarkable passage when putting the Amendment down and
when moving it to-night. It is true that there was a Naval Conference sitting five weeks ago. It is also possibly true that on the day that these words were spoken there was a hoar frost, but five weeks later there is sunny weather, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party flits about like a butterfly, and forgets that winter will come again.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who have paid such flattering attention to those of us who sit on these benches and have done us the honour to quote certain speeches have omitted to quote one reference in speeches made both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and myself on the Second Reading. There was at that time no time limit of any sort in the Bill, and one of the points which we raised specifically, and on which we made a strong appeal to the Government, was that if the Bill was to pass into law a time limit should be inserted. That was done by Amendment on the Committee stage limiting the duration of the Bill to three years. Thinking as we do that there ought to be the shortest opportunity for any evils that may occur to take place, we have urged that the period should be still shorter. That has been agreed to by the Government and the Amendment which has now been moved has been accepted. Consequently, this particular Amendment is precisely in accordance with all for which we have asked since the first stages of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the expiration of this Part of this Act shall not—

(a) affect the previous operation of, or anything duly done or suffered under, this Part of this Act; or
(b) affect any right, privilege, exemption, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under this Part of this Act; or
(c) affect any penalty or punishment incurred under this Part of this Act; or
(d) affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, or punishment as aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty or punishment may be imposed as if this Part of this Act had not expired.
(2) The provisions of this Part of this Act making it an offence to act in contravention of a declaration of secrecy shall continue in force notwithstanding the expiration of this Part of this Act.
This Amendment at first sight looks rather formidable, but it is in truth and in fact little more than a drafting Amendment. The proviso here inserted
Provided that the expiration of this Part of this Act shall not (a)…(b)…(c)…and (d)…
affecting various matters is taken almost verbatim from the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889. Whenever a Statute is repealed these consequences automatically follow by the law of this country. The repeal of the Statute does not affect anything done while the Statute is in force, and, if a person committed an offence against the Statute while it was in force, notwithstanding the repeal of the Statute, he might be proceeded against or prosecuted for the commission of an offence. When the Statute has come to an end, it goes without saying, except in the case of an express provision to the contrary, that there can be no question of committing any fresh offence. Why we have to insert this matter here instead of leaving it to the general law of the land is that it has been decided, in the courts of this country, that there is a distinction in this case between a Statute which is repealed and a Statute which comes to an end automatically in the passing of time by virtue of its own provisions. Where a Statute is repealed this result always follows by reason of the Interpretation Act, but where a Statute comes to an end automatically—when it is provided that it shall last only for a certain time, and when that length of time comes to an end—it has been decided in the first courts that these consequences do not follow.
We have inserted a provision that this statute shall come to an end at a certain time, but we do not want by so doing, to take it out of the ordinary category. We desire to make the ordinary provision of the law apply; and therefore, we expressly provide that that provision of the law which applies to any statute which is repealed shall apply also in this
case. What I have said as to the Interpretation Act only applies to (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proviso. Sub-section (2) of the Amendment is not part of the Interpretation Act at all. We put in Sub-section (2) for this reason—and I am sure that we shall have the support of the whole House—that we must in this respect make an exception to the ordinary rule. We must make a certain thing continue to be an offence notwithstanding the fact that the Act has come to an end. If hon. Members will turn to page 14 of the Bill, they will see in the course of clause 8, between lines 25 and 30, that members of the committee of investigation have to make a declaration of secrecy. That is very desirable, because they will, in the course of their investigations, acquire all sorts of secrets which otherwise they would not get. It would be most improper, if because we repealed this Act, we relieved those people from the obligation which they had undertaken, and laid it open for them to pass on the information which they only received in return for a declaration of secrecy. I am sure that the whole House will agree that we must be careful to see that that obligation of secrecy is maintained, notwithstanding the fact that this Bill comes to an end at a certain time. After that explanation, I hope that the House will agree that this Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment and one which commands universal consent.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Constitution of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 38, after the word "sell," to insert the words "or dispose of."
This is an Amendment which was introduced in the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and I undertook to accept it on the Report stage, after consideration. The hon. Member said that we ought to insert the words "or dispose of," and my only hesitation in accepting it at the time was because I thought it worthy of consideration as to whether these words would admit of a merely colourable disposal. I do not, however, think this would be so, and as it is theoretically possible that a man instead of selling his
shares might exchange them for some other shares, we ought to have words wide enough to cover that possibility. Therefore, the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, and I move to insert the words "or dispose of."

Amendment agreed to.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, after the word "on," to insert the words "in Great Britain."
The object of this Amendment is to cover the case of a commissioner who has any interest in coal mining outside the country, that he shall not be compelled to sell that interest, and that fact will not make it impossible for him to serve as a commissioner. I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(General functions of Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission.)

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 17, line 27; after the word "sum," to insert the words:
certified by an accountant appointed by the Board of Trade to be.
Although I understand that the Government are inclined to regard this Amendment favourably, I think it is necessary to explain why I attach importance to it. The House will recognise that this Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission which is set up in clause 11 is not only an important body but one whose operations, together with the assistance that they require from experts, will be somewhat costly. It was indicated, as a rough estimate, by the President of the Board of Trade that the annual expense was expected to be £250,000. The Bill does not state who is to apportion the cost of the Commissioners and their expert advisers in the case of any amalgamation, whether compulsory or voluntary.
It might be held that this was a matter which, under the Mining Industry Act of 1926, would go to the Railway and
Canal Commissioners, but on reading Section 7 of that Act, I am not of opinion that the Railway and Canal Commissioners would be empowered to go into this question. They would not be an appropriate body to consider the question of accountancy. In any case, where voluntary amalgamations were concerned the matter would not go before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I would like to quote what the President of the Board of Trade said in regard to the apportionment of this expense of £250,000 a year. He indicated, when he brought clause 11 into the Committee, in answer to a question by me, that:
The remuneration of the Commissioners would probably be a comparatively small element, and by far the greater part of the expense would relate to the legal, technical and other assistance involved. The hon. Baronet will, however, recall that it is provided in these clauses that a sum equal to the cost of that technical assistance is recoverable from the concerns amalgamated under this Bill, so that the cost of this Commission to the State, assuming that there was a recovery on those lines, would in substance be the salaries of the Commissioners together with any other expenditure that could not be recovered under the head which I have just described; but I should not imagine that that would be large—indeed the hope is rather that it would be comparatively small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1930; col. 663, Vol. 235.]
Therefore, it is clear that the President of the Board of Trade anticipates that the greater part of this £250,000 will be recovered from the concerns amalgamated. The question, therefore, is of considerable importance, and it is proper that the machinery for adjudicating as to the portion to be borne by the compulsory or voluntarily amalgamated concerns and the Treasury, should be inserted. Under the clause as it now stands, the owners of the amalgamated concerns will have to pay whatever the Commissioners and the Board of Trade decide is their share. The President of the Board of Trade said that £250,000 was only a rough approximation of the annual cost, and therefore the cost to be borne by the amalgamated concerns might exceed that amount. When I consider the position of a compulsorily amalgamated concern, I am irresistably reminded of two lines of Tennyson's. "Charge of the Light Brigade," with the alteration of one word:
Their's not to reason why, Their's but to pay and die.
Undoubtedly, these compulsorily amalgamated concerns will die so far as their continued single existence goes as separate entities in the industrial life of the nation. All that I ask for in this Amendment is that in their passing hour they shall have the ministrations of a qualified accountant.

Captain PEAKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 17, line 28, after the word "expenses," to insert the word "properly."
It is clear that the word "properly" is required. The expenses must be properly incurred. When we have a large amount of expense going on, in visits to different districts and the like, the scale of expenditure may be somewhat lavish if it is not clearly understood by the assistants to the Commissioners that there is some limit as to the expenditure to be incurred.

Captain PEAKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Amendments of Part I of 16 and 17 Geo. 5. c. 28.)

Sir B. MERRIMAN: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no such scheme of amalgamation shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the separation of the treating and disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary for such primary object.
There was objection to this Amendment in the Committee stage, but there was no dispute about its merits. There was no dispute about it being right in the case of a compulsory amalgamation to ensure, as in the case of absorption under the earlier Act, that where you have an undertaking which deals with the getting of coal and also with the treating and disposing of coal, you should not be
able to sever the colliery from the other parts of the undertaking. It was said in the Committee stage that this Amendment was not necessary, but I would invite the Attorney-General to consider whether he was not wrong in what he said. I have read and re-read his statement. He dismissed the Amendment as unnecessary on the following grounds. He said that the distinction between amalgamation and absorption must be tested by looking at the point of view of the person who is being taken over. If he was unwilling, it was absorption; if he was willing, it was amalgamation. I should like to quote one passage in which he summed up the position. He said:
The position is this: You may have a scheme in which A, B, C and D wish to come together. A, B and C may be willing, and D may be unwilling.
I think the Attorney-General displayed rather less than his usual clarity of expression. In the first place, he says that A, B, C and D wish to come together, and then he says that D is unwilling.
The first three would say, 'We are being amalgamated,' and D would say, 'I am being absorbed.' The provisions of the Act would protect D, and therefore the words are unnecessary from his point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th Feburary, 1930; col. 2348, Vol. 235.]
I agree that where you have A, B and C who are willing and D is unwilling, clearly, D is being absorbed and is covered by the reference to the old Act. On that there is no dispute, but what the Attorney-General overlooked was this, that this Bill introduces something new, something foreign to the Act of 1926. There is such a thing as compulsory amalgamation as distinct from absorption; compulsory amalgamation where nobody is willing, where neither A, B nor. C are willing to be amalgamated. Under the 1926 Act—this is where the vice of legislating by reference, by merely introducing sections of an earlier Act, is so apparent—to talk about compulsory amalgamation would be a contradiction in terms, because it was of the essence of the amalgamation under Section 1 (1) that the persons had agreed and having agreed, they were permitted to put forward a scheme.
8.0 p.m.
Compulsory amalgamation did not exist under the Act of 1926. The moment you had an agreement of two or more persons and you wanted to bring in a third party, if the party was unwilling, then
there was compulsion, the third party being absorbed. That being so, Section 1 (1) of the Act of 1926 applies to absorption and applies to the case where a person is absorbed into an amalgamation where there are some willing parties and, unless the meaning of the words has entirely changed—there is no suggestion of that, because this Bill has to be read with the Act of 1926—absorption still assumes the existence of some unwilling party, and assumes that it is expedient that the party to be absorbed should be absorbed. CLAUSE 13—I think the President of the Board of Trade has nodded assent to this—contemplates a case where none of the parties may be willing; that the "two or more undertakings" referred to may none of them be willing to amalgamate. They may be undertakings which do not necessarily consist of coal mines but may only comprise coal mines. It is therefore possible, I do not say it will happen, to order a compulsory amalgamation of that part of a coal mine comprised in an undertaking which does not wholly consist of a coal mine. They may be required to produce a scheme, and in case of failure a scheme may be produced over their heads. In the end they may be compulsorily amalgamated. If there is any doubt about that it is made still clearer in the form which the clause originally took. It might have been possible under the form of the original clause to say that you were still referring to voluntary amalgamation because it referred to amalgamations which were entitled to submit schemes, and those who were entitled to submit schemes were those who had agreed to submit schemes under the Act of 1926. Agreement was a precedent condition to submitting a scheme. Those words have been taken out.
It cannot be disputed that we are dealing here with two sets of things, both of which are compulsory; compulsory amalgamation of A. B. and C. none of whom are willing to be amalgamated, and compulsory absorption, where A and B are willing, but where the third party is unwilling. I invite the Attorney-General to consider whether in the case we want to cover—this only refers to compulsory amalgamation where none are willing—it is not necessary to have this
protection against the severance of undertakings to which I have referred. I submit that these words are necessary, or failing that that some words should be inserted which will make it perfectly plain that in the case where none are willing to amalgamate all are to be treated as if they were being absorbed.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Government will accept the proposal. At an earlier stage I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade as to what would happen in the case of a coal mine which had been acquired and worked for the benefit of a particular industry, and the reply I received was that the Commissioners would have power to compel the inclusion of this coal mine in any amalgamation. I can conceive the case where such a coal mine may be compulsorily included in a scheme which is composed largely of the majority of those who had previously been somewhat antagonistic to this particular mine. In that case it would not be a very good or desirable thing, and there should be some sort of appeal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) will not expect me to pronounce on the law of the matter but rather on the question of fact, and I can indicate at once that the Amendment is acceptable to the Government. Under the first part of the Act of 1926 amalgamation, to put it broadly and generally but I hope accurately, is on a voluntary basis. When we pass into compulsion we pass into absorption. There is a provision later in the Act of 1926 which provides against the segregation of the alliances mentioned in this Amendment. During the Committee proceedings there was some little doubt, as there always is in legislation by reference, but in order to remove any doubt, and as we are on the basis of compulsion applied to amalgamations as well as to absorptions, there is no reason in the world why we should not meet the hon. and learned Member's views, and, accordingly the Government are quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Captain PEAKE: Before the Amendment is passed I should like to say a word on this matter because it is one on which I have taken peculiar interest. I
moved it during the Committee stage and I received certain reassurances from the Attorney-General which led me to withdraw it. I am glad that upon second thoughts the Attorney-General has accepted the interpretation of the law put forward on this side of the House rather than the interpretation which he said was the correct one.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope the hon. Member will not say that. What I said was that if there is any doubt about it it is much better to clear it up.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) If the owner of any undertaking (in this Sub-section referred to as the 'transferor undertaking') proposed by any scheme submitted by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission to be amalgamated with, or absorbed in, any other undertaking (in this Sub-section referred to as the 'transferee undertaking') satisfies the Railway and Canal Commission that any money or securities belonging to the transferor undertaking formed, at the date of the passing of this Act, a reserve which, when the scheme was submitted, was not required for the efficient carrying on of the transferor undertaking, the Railway and Canal Commission shall not confirm the scheme except after making such modifications, if any, as may be necessary for securing that the money or securities will not be transferred to the transferee undertaking.
This Amendment has been put down in lieu of the one which was moved by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) in Committee stage, which the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to say he would consider. I understand that in its present form the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. The purpose is that where a concern has been putting aside reserves to meet the termination of a wasting asset, such as a coal mine, and these reserves are outside the business and not needed for the present day, they shall not be compulsorily taken into the amalgamation. That is what it means. May I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has met us on this matter.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In a single sentence, the position is as stated by the hon. Member and have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 18, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section six of the Act of 1926, the Board of Trade shall not refer to the Railway and Canal Commission any scheme prepared and submitted under Sub-section (1) of tins Section, from which all the owners of the undertakings concerned dissent.
My right hon. Friend is in such a reasonable and accommodating frame of mind that I hope he will be able to accept this Amendment also. As he does not signify his readiness to do so, I must briefly outline the merits of the proposal. The Amendment proposes that the Commission shall not have power to put forward absorption schemes where every single one of the collieries it is proposed to absorb dissent from the absorption. I should have thought that one only had to state that proposition for it to command universal assent. The only case that can be made out for Government interfering in order to promote these amalgamations is when they are amalgamations which are sound business and ought to go through, but for some reason or other something is keeping the parties apart. In a case like that some Government intervention is necessary—a sort of combination of ginger and persuasion.
There are probably cases where some of the parties would be quite willing to amalgamate but they do not like to take a dissentient owner into court themselves. I have known cases like that, and in such a case, if the amalgamation was put forward by the Mines Department with or without the assistance of the Commission, you would probably find that a large majority of the people it was proposed to amalgamate were quite prepared to assent. But what we are asked to contemplate here is not only the case where some of the parties are willing but a case where no single member, no single firm, of what is to be the new combine, is willing to come in. Not one single firm thinks it good business or that it will be to their advantage. They are all opposed to it. They all think it unsound, and will do better outside.
It is fantastic to force amalgamation in a case like that. I should have thought the proper thing in a case like that was for the Board of Trade to say, "We will buy you out and run the show. We think it can be better run as a single
concern, and we will buy you out." I am not fond of nationalisation, but there might be something to be said for that. But what is proposed here is that you should force five or 10 companies to get together when not one single one of them thinks it a sound business proposition. You are going to force them to come together, without taking any financial responsibility yourselves. That is theoretical amalgamation run mad; and I should have thought one only had to state the nature of the case for the right hon. Gentleman to accept it. I do not think he has an exaggerated belief in what amalgamation will do, and if that is his position do not let him leave a blemish on this Bill which forces him to take an action to which every single party is opposed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is difficult to indicate that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, in view of the terms in which my right hon. Friend has proposed it; but perhaps he will bear in mind that the two preceding Amendments have been accepted, and that that is not a bad quota. The short reply to the right hon. Gentleman is this: that, of course, primâ facie it seems rather strong that a proposal should be made where all the parties in any district are

against it; but we must remember that there might be quite strong forces in each individual undertaking, although not commanding a majority, which were in favour of amalgamation. The effect of the Amendment would be, in some parts of the country, that there would simply be a stand in united form against amalgamation, and that it would be quite beyond the power of the amalgamation commissioners and the Railway and Canal Commissioners even to consider the case. On the other hand, if the clause remains as it is in the Bill the reorganisation commission, that is the amalgamation commission, can propose a scheme, and that will go to the Railway and Canal Commission. The initial body can decide whether it is desirable to put up a scheme at all, and the Railway and Canal Commission has to decide whether it is in the national interests that it should proceed and whether the proposal is fair as amongst the parties affected. I do not think it will be possible for the Government to go back upon that procedure without exposing amalgamation to the risk of not proceeding at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 277.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atkinson, C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Bracken, B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brown, Brig,-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Buchan, John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tinne, J. A.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
MacRobert. Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Train, J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colfox. Major William Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colville, Major D. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cranbourne, Viscount
Mond, Hon. Henry
Waterhouse, Captair Charles


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Muirhead, A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Davies, Dr. Vernon
Peake, Capt. Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sir George Penny and Captain


Dixey, A. C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wallace.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Remer, John R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock.)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Harbord, A.
Morley, Ralph


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hardle, George D.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Alpass, J. H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vornon
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Angell, Norman
Haycock, A. W.
Mort, D. L.


Arnott, John
Heyday, Arthur
Moses. J. J. H.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh


Barnes, Alfred John
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Barr, James
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Batey, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bellamy, Albert
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackiey)


Bennett, Captain E.N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Horrabin, J. F.
Palln, John Henry


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Palmer, E. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)


Bowen, J. W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Perry, S. F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bromfield, William
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Brothers, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com, Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Buchanan, G.
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, F. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lang, Gordon
Ritson, J.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cameron, A. G.
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Cape, Thomas
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rowson, Guy


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Church, Major A. G.
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cove, William G.
Lees, J.
Scurr, John


Cowan, D. M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, James


Daggar, George
Lindley, Fred W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dallas, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dalton, Hugh
Logan, David Gilbert
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shield, George William


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dickson, T.
Lowth, Thomas
Shinwell, E.


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinkinson, George


Edmunds, J. E.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


England, Colonel A.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Foot, Isaa
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Snell, Harry


Gibbins, Joseph
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Moesley)
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Glassey, A. E.
Markham, S. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. F.


Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Melville, Sir James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Griffiths, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Middleton, G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Grundy, Thomas W.
Millar, J. D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Tout, W. J.




Townend, A. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Turner, B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Vaughan, D. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wise, E. F.


Viant, S. P.
West, F. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Walkden, A. G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Walker, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
William Whiteley.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 43, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
except for the purpose of determining any question upon an objection lodged under proviso (b) of Section seven (2) of that Act.
In order that hon. Members may understand the object of this Amendment, it is necessary to ask the House to consider one or two of the Sections of the Mining Industry Act, 1926. In Section 1, Subsection (1), of that Act, it is provided that where two or more undertakings desire to amalgamate, they may submit a scheme to the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade approves of that scheme they refer it to the Railway and Canal Commission, and once a scheme has been referred to the Railway and Canal Commission, certain objectors have the right to be heard by that tribunal. In particular, under Section 7, holders of securities in the companies affected have the right to be heard. The Section provides that the Commission
may in particular, if, upon an objection lodged by the holder of any securities in a constituent or absorbed company to whom by the scheme securities in the amalgamation or principal company are allocated in substitution therefor, they are satisfied that the substitution would not be fair in his case, order that in lieu of the proposed substitution his existing securities shall be purchased at a price to be determined in such manner as the Commission may direct.
Of course, there are cases in which the amalgamation, if purely voluntary in character, can go through without coming under the Mining Industry Act at all. Schemes can go through under the Companies Acts, but the advantage of bringing a scheme within the Mining Industry Act is that Section 5 of that Act provides that no stamp duty shall be payable in respect of any amalgamation or absorption scheme, or on any debentures, or in respect of any share or loan capital of any company, issued in pursuance of any such scheme. In other words, although a purely voluntary scheme could be put through under the Companies Acts, in that event it would be necessary to pay
stamp duty, whereas if the scheme was brought within the Mining industry Act, and referred to the Railway and Canal Commission, the advantage gained was that the promoters escaped the payment of stamp duty. But the price of escaping that payment was that people who held securities in the affected companies had the right to have their objections heard by the court, and if the court thought that they were being unfairly treated it could order that the securities should be purchased at a price to be determined in such manner as the Commission might direct. That is a perfectly fa[...]r provision, because if they were not being unfairly treated, their petition would be dismissed, but if the court thought they were being unfairly treated, then the court had the power to see that they were protected. That, if I may so express it, was part of the price which the amalgamated companies had to pay for coming before the Commission and getting the advantage of escaping stamp duty. What does clause 13 of this Bill do? Sub-section (5) provides:
Where an amalgamation scheme submitted to the Board of Trade by the owners of two or more undertakings under Subsection (1) of Section one of the Act of 1926 is certified by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission to be in the national interest, and the owners submitting the scheme represent to the Board that it is unnecessary for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme that it should be confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission under the Act of 1926, it shall not be necessary for the Board to refer the scheme to the Railway and Canal Commission under that Act, but if the Board certify that the provisions of the scheme as to any debentures or as to the issue of any share or loan capital are reasonably required for the purpose of the amalgamation"—
then they get the benefit of escaping stamp duty, without going before the Railway and Canal Commission at all. That cuts out the protection which the present Act gives to the holders of securities which are being unfairly treated. At present the law is that, in order to save the paying of this duty, you have to
go to the Canal and Commission Court, when these holders of securities who are being unfairly treated have an opportunity of having their objections dealt with, but under this clause, if the Board certify a scheme as in the national interest—and these applying companies, of course, always say it is unnecessary to go to the court—they are to get the benefit of escaping the payment of this duty without going to the court and without these people having an opportunity of having their objections heard. Therefore, what the Amendment proposes is that you need not go to the court except for the purpose of determining any question upon an objection lodged under that particular proviso.
I do not know whether or not it has been overlooked, but I should not have thought it could have been the intention of the framers of this Bill that the holders of securities should be sidetracked. Surely these people have a right to be heard at some stage, but under this Bill instead of being given this opportunity of presenting their case before the court, that opportunity can be taken away from them by the amalgamating companies simply saying that in their view it is unnecessary for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme that it should be confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The only result of inserting the Amendment will be, as I think, the eminently fair result that debenture holders who have got a legitimate objection may have their interest protected.

Commodore KING: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is difficult for Members to keep in their minds all the points which have arisen on the Committee stage. At the same time, if an hon. Member is going to move an Amendment of this sort on Report, I think we might assume that it would always be the case that he would look to see what took place on the Committee stage. I dealt with this very Amendment on the Committee stage at some length. I pointed out then that I believe this Amendment is raised under a complete misapprehension, and it is some satisfaction to me to observe that the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has not endeavoured in any way whatever to controvert any state-
ment which I then made, or to qualify in any way the few and simple propositions of law which I then set up.
This Amendment is dealing with an amalgamation scheme submitted to the Board of Trade by the owners of two or more undertakings under Sub-section (1) of Section (1) of the Act of 1926. Therefore, the first thing to observe is that it is dealing only with a case where the two companies concerned want to amalgamate. Then the Amendment is dealing with a case where, although the concerns as a whole want to amalgamate, yet there are certain shareholders who do not want to go into the scheme. That is the position which this Amendment is designed to cover. Under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, a dissentient shareholder under these circumstances had this satisfaction, that if such a scheme was brought before the Railway and Canal Commission Court, he had a right to apply to the Court to ask that he might, to put it bluntly, be bought out, but the House will observe that the question whether or not this sort of scheme, where everybody agrees, went to the Railway and Canal Court depended upon what was, from the point of view of the dissentient shareholder, a mere accident. It depended upon the fact whether the new proposed concern proposed to issue new capital. That was the sole reason why, under Sub-section (1), any two concerns ever went near any Court at all. Therefore, the question as to whether the dissentient shareholder got any protection there depended upon a mere accident, so far as he was concerned.
The whole point of the Amendment, as was stated in Committee, depends on this: The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir Boyd Merriman) on the Committee stage said he was not convinced that the right which shareholders in any ordinary company had under the Companies Act was really an efficient right. I propose to ask the House to consider whether the general law of the land, altogether apart from the Mining Industry Act, does not give shareholders just the same protection as they get under the Mining Industry Act. First of all, alter the Mining Industry Act of 1926 was passed, we had a new Companies Act, the Act of 1929, and I am certain that the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham will agree with me that this type of amal-
gamation scheme must either involve a winding-up or not. So far, we are clearly on common ground. If a winding-up is involved, as it would be in all cases save two, Section 234 of the Companies Act, 1929, applies, and the relevant Sub-section is as follows:
(3) If any member of the transferor company who did not vote in favour of the special resolution expresses his dissent therefrom in writing…he may require the liquidator either to abstain from carrying the resolution into effect, or to purchase his interest at a price to be determined by agreement or by arbitration in manner provided by this Section.
Therefore, a dissentient shareholder has the right to say that he can require the liquidator to pay him in cash or to give up the scheme. The other two Sections under the Companies Act under which this can be done are Sections 154 and 155. I set all these out on the Committee stage, and I do not propose to refer to them again at any length. I will only repeat the relevant provisions under Section 154. The whole matter goes before the Court, and the various matters which the Court has to consider are set out. One of them is paragraph (e)—
the provision to be made for any persons, who within such time and in such manner as the court direct, dissent from the compromise or arrangement.
Under Section 155
the terms on which the shares of the dissenting shareholder are to be acquired shall be such terms as the court may by the order direct instead of the terms provided by the scheme or contract.
These are the only three provisions, and let me make this quite plain. You cannot compel a dissentient shareholder to come in, you cannot force a scheme through at all, except under the provisions of one of these three Sections of the Companies Act. Under each one of these Sections, the shareholder has the right to go to the Court, and has the right to ask the Court to say that he shall be paid out in cash. That is the provision of the Companies Act of 1929, and I stated in Committee that the protection afforded by the Companies Act was quite as efficient as the protection afforded by Section 7 (2, b) of the Mining Industry Act, 1926. I have checked that position since; I have had expert advice on this matter, and I am confident that
this is the true position, and that it is a complete fallacy to suppose that a dissentient shareholder gets any benefit by Section 7 (2, b) of the Mining Industry Act which he does not already get under the Companies Act. The object of inserting it in the Mining Industry Act was that the Companies Act, 1929, did not exist when the Mining Industry Act was passed, and it was thought desirable, if you were going to the Railway and Canal Court, to let that one Court deal with both the matters, instead of having one application to the Railway and Canal Commission, and another application to the Chancery Court. I remain of the opinion that I held on the Committee stage, that this Amendment is a complete misapprehension. Altogether apart from that, as drafted, it would not work at all. Let us see what it seeks to do. I read from line 41, Sub-section (5):
It shall not be necessary for the Board"—
that is, the Board of Trade—
to refer the scheme to the Railway and Canal Commission under that Act, except for the purposes of determining any question upon an objection lodged…
But it is plain from a consideration of Section 7 of the Mining Industry Act that that objection can only be lodged after you have gone to the Railway and Canal Commission. Therefore, this Amendment, apart from it being a misapprehension on the grounds which I have explained, is simply unworkable. You cannot possibly have a point arising under proviso (b) of Section 7 unless and until you have already gone to the Railway and Canal Commission and taken certain preliminary steps. So on that ground also, the Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I naturally feel diffident in dealing with the point that has been so elaborately dealt with by the Attorney-General, and I thank him for having advised the House as he has done in great detail. I may be quite wrong, but I will ask him a further question. He has dealt with this as if it were a case of a shareholder dissenting, and the three Sections of the Companies Act to which he referred all deal with the position of a dissentient shareholder. A dissentient shareholder was entitled to give notice, and unless the liquidator refrained from carrying out
the scheme, the shareholder was to be paid out; but the case which my hon. and learned Friend made was not with regard to shareholders only; indeed, it was not in regard to shareholders at all. He was taking the case of someone who had a debenture. A debenture is not covered, I believe, by any one of the Sections to which the Attorney-General referred. The Amendment refers to Section 7 of the Mining Industry Act, which does not refer to shareholders only; it refers also to the holder of any security in a company—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman will find that Sections 153 and 154 of the Companies Act do refer to creditors of a company. A debenture holder is not a shareholder, but he is a creditor.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is under a scheme for dealing with the creditors of a company. That surely is not a case such as is contemplated by this Bill. That case is an amalgamation, and does not deal with creditors in a semi-composition between the company and its creditors, in a company that has failed and cannot carry on its business and has to meet its creditors. That is the kind of case to which the Attorney-General has referred. These cases are something quite different. They are amalgamations of companies which are not necessarily insolvent at all, and which do not necessarily want to make any arrangement with their creditors at all. On the contrary, they are quite able to carry on, but they are to be absorbed under this Bill. What we ask is not that the owner of a security, a debenture holder, or even a shareholder, should be forced to go to the Court of Chancery, but we ask by this Amendment that those who think that in their case it is not fair that they should be asked to take a substituted security should, as the Act of 1926 contemplated, have the right to put their case before the Railway and Canal Commission.
Surely it is not right for the Government to say, "The Companies Act gives you rights, and you can initiate proceedings on your own account before the Law Courts under the Companies Act." It is intended by this Bill to have an ad hoc tribunal—the Railway and Canal
Commission—who are to consider the terms of an amalgamation, and who are to give sanction to the amalgamation; but I want them to be able to say, as they can under the 1926 Act, "We do give sanction, but in the case of that particular individual he has got debentures"—he has perhaps to pawn the debentures—[Interruption.] Yes, those debentures are going to be exchanged for something else which a bank would not accept as security, and unless you give some protection of this sort, you may bankrupt some individual who thought that he had a decent security. It is unwise from the Government's point of view that an individual should be made to run those risks. Do not forget that the Government are doing something that no Government have ever done before in dealing with individuals. [Interruption.] They may think that it is right to do it, and treat it as a precedent for the future, but I warn the Government that if they do these things, they ought to do them with a show of justice to the individual; for if they do not, they will never be able to carry through this type of amalgamation.
As to whether the words of the Amendment are right, I ask the Attorney-General to be kind enough to advise us what words are right. The House is entitled to the advice of the Attorney-General, and I feel that if we get these words in, and he does not like them, there is another place where the words can be altered. They are not very far wrong, anyhow, and the object is quite plain. Let me state it again. It is to protect an individual who might quite possibly be ruined if the amalgamation went through, an amalgamation which might be fair as between company and company and yet create an unnecessary hardship upon the individual. If you are going to carry out this type of amalgamation it is unwise to burden yourself with the hard cases which will arise, and it is wise to accept this Amendment. If it is not in the exact words which are considered appropriate, then alter the words in another place.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 286.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[8.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, A. C.
Remer, John R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atkinson, C.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bracken, B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Iveagh, Countess of
Thomson, Sir F.


Buchan, John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Tinne, J. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Train, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Chapman, Sir S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Christle, J. A.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Warrender, Sir Victor


Colville, Major D. J.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Morrlson-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.



Dalkeith, Earl of
Peake, Captain Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Penny, Sir George
Captain Wallace and Captain


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Margesson.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Ramsbotham, H.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Church, Major A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Groves, Thomas E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)


Alpass, J. H.
Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Angell, Norman
Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Arnott, John
Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dallas, George
Harbord, A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hardie, George D.


Ayles, Walter
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haycock, A. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dickson, T.
Hayday, Arthur


Barr, James
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bennett, Captain E.N. (Cardiff, Central)
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts,J.


Benson, G.
Edge, Sir William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hoffman, P. C.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hopkin, Daniel


Brockway, A. Fenner
Elmley, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Bromfield, William
England, Colonel A.
Horrabin, J. F.


Bromley, J.
Foot, Isaac.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Brothers, M.
Freeman, Peter
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Burgess, F. G.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Le[...]f (Camborne)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gould, F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Cameron, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Thomas


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gray, Milner Kenworthy, Lt.-Com Hon. Joseph M.



CharletoR, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kinley, J.


Chater, Daniel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Kirkwood, D.




Knight, Holford
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Lang, Gordon
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Lathan, G.
Muff, G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract}


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lawrence, Susan
Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lawson, John James
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stephen. Campbell


Leach, W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern}
Palin, John Henry.
Sullivan, J.


Lees, J.
Paling, Wilfrid
Sutton, J. E.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Palmer, E. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lindley, Fred W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Perry, S. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Logan, David Gilbert
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Longbottom, A. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Tinker, John Joseph


Longden, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Toole, Joseph


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Tout, W. J.


Lowth, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Lunn, William
Price, M. P.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


MacDonald, Gordon (Ince)
Quibell, D. F. K.
Turner, B.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Vaughan, D. J.


McElwee, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Viant, S. P.


McEntee, V. L.
Richards, R.
Walkden, A. G.


Mackinder, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walker, J.


McKinlay, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


MacLaren, Andrew
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


McShane, John James
Romeril, H. G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Mansfield, W.
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


March, S.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Marcus, M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
West, F. R.


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Marley, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Marshall, Fred
Sandham, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mathers, George
Sawyer, G. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Matters, L. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Melville, Sir James
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, James
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Millar, J. D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mills, J. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wise, E. F.


Milner, Major J.
Shield, George William
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Montague, Frederick
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shillaker, J. F.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morley, Ralph
Shinwell, E



Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simmons, C. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South}
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinson, George
Whiteley.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

CLAUSE 16.—(Application of 52 & 53 Vict, c. 49.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 21, line 18, to leave out from the word "apply" to the word "to" in line 19.
In moving this Amendment, it is necessary to explain to the House how the matter stands. This question was raised by hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage, and I think we have met the case which was presented to us. We have stated that the Arbitration Act shall apply with all the consequences of the Arbitration Act with two exceptions. First of all, we say that the Arbitration Act shall apply only in so far as that Act is consistent with Part I of this Bill. I will give an illustration of the sort of point this qualification is designed to
meet. On page 13 of the Bill, clause 5, Sub-section (8), it is provided that the arbitrator in default of an agreement shall be appointed by the Board of Trade: whereas under the Arbitration Act the arbitrator in default of agreement would be nominated by the Court or a judge. The other qualification is a more important one, and we commend it to the House in the circumstances of this case. We intend to put in a proviso that:
Provided that where on any such arbitration an award is stated in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court under paragraph (b) of Section seven of that Act the decision of the High Court thereon shall be final.
I am afraid that this is a very dry and technical subject. There are two provisions under the Arbitration Act of 1889.
They are to be found in Section 7 and Section 19. Section 7 provides that:
the arbitrators or umpire, acting under a submission, shall, unless the submission expresses a contrary intention, have power—
(b) to state an award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court.
If the parties do not exclude that and a special case is stated, they can come before the first Court. There may be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and from that there may be an appeal to the House of Lords. The judges have frequently said that the procedure is not altogether satisfactory. There is another provision under that Act, Section 19, which says:
Any referee, arbitrator or umpire may at any stage of the proceedings under a reference, and shall, if so directed by the court or a judge, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court any question of law arising in the course of the reference.
With regard to a question of law arising in the course of the reference, an arbitrator is bound to state a special case if so directed, and the decision of the first court is final. Although in the great majority of cases a question of law arising under Section 19 will come before a Divisional Court consisting of 2 or 3 judges, yet this is simply a matter of procedure. The decision is final. We are trying by these amendments to make a decision under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, as final as is a decision under Section 19 of the same Act, for in other respects the procedure under Section 7 is more convenient than under Section 19. Under the schemes which this Bill contemplates we could exclude Section 7 altogether, and leave Section 19 only. We suggest to the House, as a reasonable compromise, that Section 19, and all the machinery connected with it, should be left untouched; and that the machinery of Section 7 should not be excluded—as we could exclude it in our scheme—but should also apply, except that the decision shall rest with the court of first instance, and not go to the higher courts. I speak with some hesitation on this delicate subject, but, on the whole, a somewhat lengthy experience in the commercial courts has taught me this. I think that business men in the City of London view with not altogether com-
plete favour the system of appeals, and particularly the dual appeal. A very distinguished City man said to me not very long ago, "Give us as good a judge as you can in a court of first instance. We are sure to get good judges, and anyhow I would rather take my chance and accept the decision of that judge rather than go to two more Courts and spread the case, it may be, over years, and possibly get a result which is determined by one judge this way or the other in the last resort." At any rate, there is something to be said for that view.
Here we are dealing with a matter which intimately concerns commercial men, and I would suggest to the House that it is very desirable, particularly as this Act, if it becomes an Act, may not last a very long time, to get quickly to the Court and determine finally what the rights of the parties are. We do not think that this is a case for the normal procedure of appealing to the Court of Appeal, and then after that to the House of Lords, which would mean that the final determination of the case would be held up for a very long time. We propose to ask the House to say, although we have consented to include the Arbitration Act, in answer to the request of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I gather that he resents the word "consented," though I hope he does not. The right hon. Gentleman wanted us to include the Arbitration Act, and I say quite frankly that we have endeavoured to approach these Amendments with the desire to meet the wishes of the other side so far as we can. In this case we have done it subject to that one qualification. We have thought it desirable that this determination should rest with the High Court, in order to get a speedy determination once for all.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I suppose I ought to be humbly grateful to the Government for having consented to meet us to some extent or rather, not to meet us, but to give partial justice to those who may have reason to complain of the Government's future action. It is intended that there shall be the protection, for people whose property is being taken compulsorily from them of being able to go to arbitration to have their views considered by an independent
tribunal. The Bill as drawn provided that those who went before that tribunal were to be finally bound by its decision. No matter what point of law arose, they would have no right of entry to the courts of the land. But the Government have graciously consented to give them entrance to the courts of the land, or rather, to one of the courts of the land—only up to the court of first instance. Although hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of property may be in dispute, the dispute has to stop at the court of first instance. In every other matter the law of the land is that, even in a small claim of under £1,000, if the court of first instance is deemed to be wrong, the judgment can be appealed against to the Court of Appeal, and, if necessary, to the highest tribunal. The Government now, however, no matter how important the question is, say, "We have graciously consented to let you go to the court of first instance, and no further shall you go." If I thought that I could move the President of the Board of Trade, I would pursue the matter, but I feel that it is hopeless to attempt to go further, and, therefore, with a protest, I must accept what the Government have been graciously pleased to give.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 22, leave out the words "the scheme or."

In line 23, leave out "III," and insert instead thereof "IV."

Leave out the words "as the case may be," and insert instead thereof the words:
(2) No scheme or rules approved or made under Part I of this Act shall exclude the application of the Arbitration Act, 1889, to any arbitration held in pursuance of that Part of this Act except in so far as that Act is inconsistent with that Part of this Act.
Provided that where on any such arbitration an award is stated in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court under paragraph (b) of Section seven of that Act the decision of the High Court thereon shall be final."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 3, leave out "III," and insert instead thereof "IV."

In line 20, leave out "III," and insert instead thereof "IV."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Districts for Purposes of Part I of Act. Part II: Provisions as to Amalgamation and Adjustment of Districts.)

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 24, line 17, after the word "of," to insert the words "a substantial number of coal mines in."
This is a drafting Amendment to bring the words of the Schedule into line with an Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), which we accepted, to one of the clauses of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 21, leave out the words "the district," and insert instead thereof the words "those coal mines."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: We have now reached very nearly the end of our long battle. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade must be very much relieved that his labours, so far as the Mines Bill is concerned, will shortly cease. I should like to take this opportunity to make my humble contribution by way of appreciation to his clearness and the great courtesy he has shown to the House during this long and protracted struggle. It has been a long battle and cannonading has been continuous and well kept up in certain quarters of the House, though, unfortunately, it has faded away on the benches below me. Such things have happened before in history, and troops have been withdrawn, for strategic reasons, from the battle. In very few cases has that ultimately redounded either to the advantage of those troops or the general in command.
The President of the Board of Trade has been likened to Ulysses by one of his own side. I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that, from our own experience, many on this side have likened him rather to something in the nature of a siren, and we should not have been surprised if someone on the
Front Bench had issued the same orders as Ulysses issued to his crew, and told us to keep cotton wool in our ears while the President of the Board of Trade was speaking. It is largely due to that that he has managed to get as far as he has with this Bill. Although I congratulate him, I feel a good deal of sympathy with him, because if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, nobody in the whole country will be more deserving of sympathy than he. I am sorry to depress him in any way by forecasting an extremely gloomy future when he comes to operate this Measure. He has unwittingly created a monster, a Frankenstein. He has created a giant trust the like of which has not been seen in this country before. I do not think the country generally realises what has been done. The Coal Bill is not understood in the Provinces in its full implications. When it comes into operation, gradually the country will become alive to the situation and realise that as consumers, nine-tenths or practically the whole of the country, they are bound hand and foot to the chariots of the coal miners and the coalowners.
We have heard a great deal from the President of the Board of Trade about an economic price. When sometime I have the leisure, I propose to go through the Bill and see how many times the words "economic price" have been used. What does it mean? It is not a nice phrase. It really means a profitable price from the point of view of the coalowners and the coal miners. On many occasions the President of the Board of Trade has skated over difficult matters by referring to this phrase "economic price," without pointing out that the object of what he is doing is to secure as profitable a price as possible for a certain section of the community. In addition to that phrase, the President of the Board of Trade has also used the phrase "weak seller." If in future anybody calls me a weak seller, I shall feel a sense of very great inferiority and annoyance, because, after listening to the President of the Board of Trade and other hon. Members, I have come to the conclusion that there can exist no more despicable, loathsome and selfish person than a weak seller. Of what is an economic price made up? It is the
normal inter-action of buyer and seller—sellers of all grades from weak to strong—and the combination of every conceivable grade of seller, weak, strong and strongest, makes up in the aggregate the normal economic price. In connection with buyers and sellers, the President of the Board of Trade is creating one great, isolated strong seller, but he forgets, on the other side, that he may well be spreading the area of very weak buyers. He talks about economic prices, but an economic price is clearly the interaction of buyer and seller in an unfettered world. If it is going to confer on us an economic price, it is to fix a price with the buyer having very little to say and with inadequate safeguards—a price fixed by owners and miners under a gigantic trust created, ordered and supervised by the Government.
I should like to say a word on the question of the minimum prices. One of the light infantry below me, when they were fighting, used a very destructive argument on the question of a minimum price to which I have as yet heard no answer. How is it to he fixed? In other words, the minimum price for the least efficient coal mine is to be too high for the best coal mine. If you fix a low minimum price you are, by Government action, putting the poor, inefficient coal miner out of business, and if you fix it too high so that the poor owner can make a profit, you bleed the consumer. I have not yet heard an answer which satisfies me. It is this very matter which will cause great trouble when you actually come to deal with fixing a price that is fair and satisfactory to all concerned, and which gives safeguards. The President of the Board of Trade then referred to what I may call the reasonable coalowner. If every coal-owner were like the President of the Board of Trade, there would be nothing more to say. I should say, "Charge me what you like and restrict output as you like." But we have not yet reached that stage of development in the world, and the example of the President of the Board of Trade has not yet permeated sufficiently to make such a thing possible. At the same time, when the President discussed the question of safeguards and of the unlikelihood of advantage being taken of the various powers he has be-
stowed on the owners, he seemed to have rather idealised them. To a certain extent he has extended the halo which his following have placed round the miners, to the owners as well, so that they are both under the same umbrella. I am inclined to think that the President of the Board of Trade has not allowed for human nature in dealing with the treatment of the coal trade. There is in it a little too much of the economic man, with whom we were familiar in the Victorian era, and who figures in a great many Socialist pamphlets to-day, but who does not exist in reality. I do not think the country will be very confident that these enormous powers to be conferred on the owners are such powers as ought to be placed in the hands of the average man who has to get a living out of coal to-day.
Then a good deal of discussion has ranged round the question of committees of investigation, and they have been put forward as a means of protecting the consumer against too high prices. I think the learned Attorney-General pointed out that on the committees of investigation under district schemes two would be consumers, two would be producers and one the chairman. When it is realised that on the price obtained depend both the profits of the coalowners and the wages of the miners, there will be an almost irresistible bias on these committees of investigation in favour of keeping the minimum price which has been fixed by the district committees, particularly if it should be thought that, if that price is reduced, there is likely to be industrial trouble. I cannot imagine any committee being strong enough to take the risk of reducing the price in response to a complaint if they think that thereby industrial trouble will result. I believe the same point was taken in the Royal Commission in 1925. The Miners' Federation put up a scheme of a Consumers' Council and a Producers' Council, something in the same way analogous to the Executive Board and the committees of investigation.
The Royal Commission pointed out that circumstances such as I have outlined might very well arise, that in case of a conflict of judgment between these two councils there would be such a bias in favour of doing anything to prevent industrial trouble that the consumer
would not get very much chance, and the Board of Trade and the Government in that case, and I think in this, would be inevitably implicated in a price dispute affecting a great industry. That seems to me to be one of the major defects in the whole of this legislation that, however much the President of the Board of Trade might wish otherwise, sooner or later he is bound to be drawn into an industrial dispute in regard to prices, output, and the regulation of this great industry. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the coal industry should be continually coming to the Board of Trade for redress.
I wish to say a final word of sympathy for the Liberal party. I have sympathised with the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not want to leave the Liberal party out, because it must have been very trying for stalwart, courageous men, who fought so nobly before Christmas and stood to their guns, and fired desperately at the Government Benches, almost in the twinkling of an eye to be marched out of the battle. It reminds me of the rhyme of the glorious Duke of York, who had ten thousand men, and led them up a hill, and led them down again. [Interruption.] This general has not ten thousand, but 40 or 50, but they have both done the same thing. He led them up the hill before Christmas, and now he has led them right down to the abyss, where I believe such conduct will keep them. At the same time it is for them to justify themselves in their constituencies because, although these political manoeuvres and tactics and strategy may be intelligible here, a great many people outside will wonder how it came to pass that a presumably important party could for months strenuously oppose a Bill, express their dislike to it in unmeasured terms, and then quite recently, for reasons which we all know, withdraw their opposition to something which they believe to be absolutely contrary to the interests of the country, retire from the scene, and allow legislation to which they object to go through unopposed.

Mr. PERRY: I am sure I join with others in congratulating ourselves upon reaching the final stage of this Bill. As one who has played a humble part in the discussions, may I pay a tribute to the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and the ex-Minister of Mines for having so kindly helped us on more than one occasion in dealing with very difficult matters. I have not had the experience that many Members have had in dealing with complicated and highly technical Bills, and I think it would be generally conceded that this has been one of the most complicated and highly technical Bills the House has ever discussed. In my opinion the progress that has been made would not have been possible had it not been for willingness in all parts of the House to discuss and help us on questions which could be mutually arranged. In the recollection of most Members there has hardly been a Bill of such magnitude which has gone through the House in such a short time without the application of the Guillotine, and certainly with less frequent application of the Closure.
Now I should like to deal with the situation the Bill has attempted to grapple with. During the whole of these discussions, during the Second Reading Debate, during the whole of the Committee and Report stages, I have yet to hear a sound alternative, or any alternative proposal, put forward. It is an attempt to deal with an industry which is probably in as grave a state as it has ever been. I have more than once said to business men in my constituency that if they had been connected with a business upon which Commission after Commission and Committee after Committee had adversely reported in regard to the efficient conduct of the industry, they would have been heartily ashamed of themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did they answer?"] They said they would have been ashamed of themselves. The late Government carried out a policy which cost the taxpayers between £24,000,000 and £25,000,000 in subsidies to the coal industry. What have they to show for it? Certainly very little, if any, success has been brought to the industry by the application of that subsidy.
We were challenged the other night when advocating a policy of abundance, that the principles contained in Part I of this Bill, the regulation of output and the attempt to regulate prices, were against a policy of abundance. When we ventured to suggest, that although
right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen in this House were denouncing the regulation of output, they themselves were actually applying that principle in their own industries, the only reply we received was that that policy was a voluntary one, whereas we were trying to impose it by legislation. I submit that if that policy has proved successful, though voluntarily applied, and if it has been for the benefit of industries, surely it cannot be wrong if it is to be brought about by the direction of the State.
As one who has been intimately associated with the consumers' movement for a life-time, and who is deeply concerned as to the price of the article to the consumer, I say quite frankly that I have no right to have cheap coal at the expense of the man who is risking his life in order to get it. I have said to my friends on more than one occasion that if they had to wait until I went down into the bowels of the earth and risked my life in order to get coal, there would be a great shortage of coal in this country. I think that this would be the view generally accepted by consumers. They do not expect to get cheap coal at the expense of the man who risks his life and limb in order to produce it. Hon. Gentlemen will agree, I think, that what attempts there have been to promote amalgamations inside the industry have not been very successful. The amalgamation proposals of this Bill are far-reaching. We have been told that it is quite possible under the amalgamation proposals of this Bill to organise the whole industry into a single unit. If that is possible, and if that single unit is found to be operating to the detriment of the consumers of coal, I have such confidence in this House and in the electors of this country that I believe they will demand some further degree of public control over the operations of the single unit, or the units, in the industry.
Great objection has been shown in the House, amongst one section particularly, to the proposal to reduce the miners' hours by half an hour a day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) very effectively pointed out that this proposal can hardly come into operation before September of this year, and that if no legislation had been introduced the Eight Hours Act would automatically expire next year. We should then have come back to the seven-
hour day, resuming the old conditions which obtained prior to the Act of 1926. I submit that the slight difference between September of this year and July of 1931 is not going to have the disastrous effect upon industry which many Members of the House honestly fear. The coal industry in this country has passed through very great difficulties with Governments of all parties. The Conservative Government, the Liberal Government, our own Government in 1924, all experienced difficulties and troubles arising inside the coal industry. Many of us on these benches are looking for the establishment of a national industrial board to lay down a new foundation and help to promote a better spirit within the industry. Despite the objections in some quarters of this House, I hope that there is not a Member who will not give that proposal his loyal and whole-hearted support.
The Division to-morrow cannot be on particular parts of the Bill. We have got to the stage when we must take the Bill as it is, or reject it completely. I want to make an appeal to the House. We have threshed out our differences in Committee and on Report stage. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, while disliking many parts of the Bill, have done their best by Amendments to try to improve it, and we may rightly claim that during the whole of these discussions full opportunity has been given for amending the Bill as originally introduced. I hope that to-morrow, when the Division is taken, this Bill will receive a unanimous Third Reading, and that with the passing of the Bill there will come a new message of hope to the mining industry of this country.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.
We have taken very great care that the evil is not going to last very much longer than 1932, but that will be long enough to cause a great deal of trouble in the coal trade. This Coal Bill and the Debate on it have been conducted, on our side at least, on the most constructive and most complacent lines. There have been absolutely no signs of obstruction. If the Amendments which we put forward had been accepted, we should have had
a very different Coal Bill. I do not know what the Liberals would have done if our Amendments had been accepted. They would not have known where they were. I am certain that we should have had a very good, workable Coal Bill. I am also certain that nobody on the other side thinks that we have either obstructed or put forward any Amendment which we did not think was going to help the coal trade, the owners and the employés to come to a better understanding, and also to get cheaper coal for the public. This Bill, as far as the Socialists are concerned, has been what I call a "one-man show." The President of the Board of Trade has kept the bridge manfully night and morning. He has been extraordinarily nice about every Amendment which has been put forward. There has not been any trouble or any unpleasantness, and I am sure we all feel that he has played the game.

Mr. HOFFMAN: We can play it.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I say he has played the game as far as the object which he had in view permitted him to do so. I would like to know what the position of the ordinary rank-and-file Socialist will be when he goes to his constituency and says he has voted for dear coal for every manufacturer and every householder in his constituency. Do not run away with the idea that we are not going rabbiting. We are going rabbiting, hot and strong. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but you will not go to your constituencies and laugh and say, "I raised the price of coal."

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member is not applying that to me.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: It does not apply to you, Mr. Speaker. I was just explaining that hon. Members opposite will have to go down to their constituencies and explain that, instead of carrying out their wonderful promises, all that they have been able to do, besides putting up the unemployment figures, is to put up the price of coal. This Bill makes one of the worst sort of alliances for owners and workers to get together to rob the public. Hon. Members opposite laugh. It is all very well to laugh just now, but they will have very serious faces when they are asked by their constituents what has been hap-
pening. They may look happy and pleasant to-night, but they will not do so after the next election. I should like to say a few words about my hon. Friends below the Gangway, the Liberal party. They were perfectly wonderful in the early stages of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a most wonderful speech when he addressed the beauty chorus, and got them to reply to what he said, until they were stopped. The attitude of the Liberal party is amazing. We are told that those who fight and run away will live to fight another day. The Liberals remind me of the banderlog. They talked about the beautiful things they wished to do, but they only wished it, and then, at the end, it is a case of, "Brother, your tail hangs down behind." I hope that it will continue hanging down behind until it drops off. I do not know what the Liberals are going to do. They have taken up a most untenable position. We do not know whether they are on that side of the House or on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS "Over here"] That will come, perhaps after the next election, which, pray God, will come soon.
10.0 p. m.
I have voted against the Government on every possible occasion in connection with this Bill. It is one of the worst Bills that has ever been brought forward. From A to Z it will not help anyone except the miners and the mineowners. There are lots of people in the country besides the miners and the mineowners, and I am much more concerned to help the other people than to help forward this sort of class distinction and class war. I am certain that the whole thing is most unfair. The 50 Members who represent the miners come here in great strength, and hold a big stick over the Government. They can do anything that they like with the Government. They do not know how much power they have with the Government, otherwise we might have had an even worse Bill than this. Luckily, the President of the Board of Trade has a good deal of guile; he comes from North of the Tweed, and he knows how to work the miner Members of Parliament. If I had been a miners' representative and I knew the power that I had, I should have made a very much better bargain with the President of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade has got off very lightly with this pernicious Bill.
There is nothing in the Bill to help anyone except the miners and the mine-owners. What about the cotton people? What will hon. Members say when they have to talk to the iron and steel people and to tell them how much this Bill puts on their costs? What will they do when they have to talk to the cotton people?
The President of the Board of Trade cannot bring in a Bill to fix the price of cotton goods. If he could do that, he would be helping us a great deal. He cannot bring in a Bill to fix the price of iron and steel, or the price of wool. In this Bill he is fixing the price of a single commodity. The supporters of the Bill were not sporting enough to take the 90 hours per fortnight Amendment, which would have made a great difference; it would have helped people who are in need of help just as much as the miners. I suggest to the Government that they should not hang round the miners so much. They should go round the county and try to understand exactly how much other people are suffering. If they did that, they would not be so se[...]-sufficient in their views on this question. Let them go to Lancashire and see the people there. The Lancashire people are having a bad enough time, a far worse time than the miners are having. The miners will be helped by this Bill, but the cotton trade will be hit by it. Unemployment will be increased. The cotton trade will be injured because of the increased price of one of its essential raw materials. Hon. Members opposite talk about being Free Traders. They are no more Free Traders than I am. They are protecting coal. This is an example of the most unscientific protection that I have ever come across. When we come to the Third Reading Division to-morrow. I hope that the banderlog will come behind us in a solid phalanx, although I doubt it, and that this Bill will be thrown out.

Mr. BATEY: We have just listened to a most interesting speech. I am very sorry that the hon. Member is still so bitter against the mining class.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am not bitter against the mining class, but I am keen on the cotton trade and other trades. I want them to have a look in.

Mr. BATEY: The whole tone of the hon. Member's speech was that the
miners should be kept where they are at the present time. They cannot stay there. He said that there were 50 mining Members. I do not think that we have so many. He also said that we had enormous power, and that if we had used our power this might have been a worse Bill. The fact that we have not used our power to the full, according to the hon. Member, shows our reasonableness. We do not regard this as an ideal Bill. We would have liked far more than we have got, but we have been prepared to accept the Bill as a reasonable step, and we support it because we believe that it is a step towards bettering the conditions of the miners. The hon. Member forgets that after the General Election we came back with bitter memories. Prior to the Election, in consequence of the action of the Conservative Government, we lost our seven-hour day, and the wages of the miners were cut down to such an extent that the mining class were plunged into the gutter of poverty. Many of our miners were not treated well by the coal-owners.
We came back expecting that, at least, we should have restored to us the seven-hour day. We believed that we should be able to get wages increased and better treatment for our men from the coal-owners. We believed that we should be able to get such a reorganisation of the coal industry which would put it on its feet and enable it to provide better conditions for those engaged in it. Part I is an experiment; but it does this. It gives enormous power to the coalowners. The miners have no voice in Part I. We think they were entitled to some voice, and in the Sankey Commission Report it was recommended that the experience of miners was such that it entitled them to have a voice in the conduct of the industry.
We expect two things from the coal-owners after the Bill is passed. One is that they will bear in mind the need for lifting up the mining classes of the country. In the Debates on this Bill we have been told that we are voting for a dearer coal Bill, and last night particularly the Debate was concerned least of all with the Bill and more with the question of dearer coal. Nothing was said about the mining classes and the need for better conditions. The claim of the miners on the attention of this House appeared to be of no concern at all, but I
hope the coalowners will keep in mind the necessity of doing something to improve the conditions of the mining classes.
Rightly or wrongly, the wages of the miners follow the prices which are obtained for the sale of coal. I am not arguing whether that is a good or bad system, but it is there, and so long as the wages of the miners follow prices then the coalowners in selling coal should keep in mind the need for providing better wages for the miners. I hope they will keep in mind the necessity for obtaining better prices in order that there may be better wages for the miners. I hope also there will be better treatment for some of our miners on the part of the coal-owners. After the last trouble some of the coalowners, not all, treated the men extremely badly, and during the last few years there has been victimisation such as I never believed we should live to see. Only this week I had from the Durham Miners' Association a communication pointing out that in one colliery in the county of Durham, East Pontop, where 110 men are employed, only three of the men are members of the Durham Miners' Association. As soon as the manager of that colliery gets to know that a man is a member of the Durham Mining Association he is dismissed. I hope, after the Bill is passed, that as the mining Members have done so much to help the coal-owners to the power given them under Part I, they will treat our men in a very different way, and that because a man is a member of the Miners' Federation he will not be barred from working in a colliery.
If this Bill is going to be a success, particularly if Part I is going to be a success, good relations are essential, and we cannot have good relations so long as the coalowners pursue their present policy. During the Debates on this Bill the only question in the mind of hon. Members seemed to be the sale of coal. I hope the coalowners are not going to be content with the sale of coal. I do not believe coal can be sold at home or for export at a price which will make things a great deal better than they are. Instead of focussing our efforts on the sale of coal, I think we should pay more attention to the treatment of coal. That, I believe, is the remedy. There is a great future before the coal industry in the extraction of oil and other by-products.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not embark on a discussion of that question. On the Third Reading the hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: All I wanted to point out is that in the organisation of the coal industry there is far more to be obtained from the treatment of coal than the sale of coal, and I hope the coalowners will give a great deal more attention to that matter. I am going to support the Bill, and I am glad to be able to do so. It is a step which is needed very badly in order to lift the mining classes to a higher platform and standard of living than they occupy now.

Captain PEAKE: The Debates on this Bill have been marked by extraordinary good temper, and I want to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the extraordinary good hearted way in which he has piloted the Measure through this House. The peacefulness of the atmosphere has been greatly helped by the benevolent appearance of his lieutenant the Secretary for Mines. I want to go back to the origin of the Bill. The origin was a pledge given before the election by the Labour party to the miners—a pledge which ought never to have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members opposite say it should have been given then let them ask the President of the Board of Trade why it has not been carried out. It was a pledge which should never have been given in the economic conditions of the coal industry in 1929. This great industry was not paying its way. It had lost over £20,000,000 in cash during the three years before the election, and it had lost that sum of money on a capital which is only about one-half or one-third the capital of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. It was a huge sum to have lost on a comparatively small capital. If the coal industry is to be restored to a healthy condition it has not only to be just balancing, making both ends meet, it must be making a profit. Unless an industry is making a profit it is quite impossible to attract any new capital to that industry for reorganisation and rationalisation.
The coal trade requires to make a return on its capital, and it requires rather a larger return than that which can be obtained by putting money into
Government stocks, because the mines in which the money is invested are wasting assets. In 60, 80 or 100 years they are gone and the capital sunk in the mines is gone.[Interruption.] While this was the position the miners' Members thought it wise to give the pledge that I have mentioned. A pledge given to miners at an election is worth far more than a pledge given to any other section of the community. The mining population is congregated in certain districts, and the miners are able to return a large number of Members to this House. That cannot be done by an equally numerous and equally important section of the community namely, the workers in the agricultural industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "They should organise!"] It is not because they are not organised, but because they do not happen to be congregated in certain areas; they are spread all over the country.
In 1926 the hours in the coal mining industry were increased from seven to eight. How anyone imagined after the War that it was possible to reduce the hours from eight to seven, after this country had spent £7,000,000,000 on the greatest struggle in history; how anyone could have thought it possible that the workers in any industry could have more money than before for shorter hours, is a thing that will puzzle those who have to write the history of the period. The history of the mining industry, over a long period, is this: There have been continual and steady reductions of hours for the last 100 to 150 years. There was a time when men were working 14, 12 and 10 hours a day. In recollecting this we realise that under the capitalist system the position of the workers has steadily improved. There was a speaker the other day who said that unemployment was an integral part of the capitalist system.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with that question now. We must keep to the Bill.

Captain PEAKE: I will bring myself back to the Bill. The coal industry cannot possibly stand still. Everyone recognises that rationalisation must be brought about in the industry. There are those who believe that the proper method of rationalising the coal industry is by amalgamation and by amalgamation
alone. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) pins his faith very largely to amalgamation. Liberals believe in it so strongly that they are going to make it compulsory, and they have even moved an Amendment from the Liberal benches to provide that owners of single pits should obtain an extra allowance of quota—a sort of prize for the naughty boys who refuse to amalgamate. I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, Who believes so strongly in amalgamation, that the British coal mining industry is not quite the same thing as the German coal-mining industry. We cannot apply to the British coal-mining industry the principles which we would apply to any ordinary industry conducted, let us say, in factories. The British coal-mining industry is a far older industry than the German coal-mining industry.
Nature has been very lavish in her gifts to this little island and north-west of a line drawn from Lincoln to Exeter, practically each county has its own separate coalfield. These coalfields are on the whole very shallow, and where you get shallow coalfields you get disturbed coalfields. On the whole, the pits in this country are older and consequently of a smaller capacity than the pits of the newer coal-mining districts of the world, and it is far more difficult for a man or a group of men to manage 20 or 30 of these small coalmines making up an output of, say, 1,000,000 tons a year, than to manage two or three large modern coal mines making up an output of 2,000,000 tons or 3,000,000 tons a year.
Amalgamation as applied to the coal industry does not work out in the same way as amalgamation applied to what I may call factory industries. If we rationalise the steel industry we concentrate production of certain classes of steel at certain places most suited by geography to the production of that commodity. The coal industry, however, has to be conducted at the spot where the coal is situated. The coal industry is more like the agricultural industry than any other industry in this country. For one thing, the people conducting the industry are tenants, and they are in the same position as the farmers in that respect. Like the farmers they have to take something out of the land, and, when times are bad, they can take rather more out of the land than they are putting back
into it in the way of development, or in the case of the farmer, in the way of manuring and so forth.
I do not suppose that the right non. Gentleman the Member for Darwen would advocate amalgamation as a cure for depression in the agricultural industry. [HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] I have not read all the multi-coloured books produced by the party below the Gangway, but I am sure that amalgamation is not the remedy provided in them for the agricultural industry. What the coal industry wants, and, possibly, what the agricultural industry also wants, is a looser form of combination on the marketing side. The technique of the British coal industry, on the production side is, I believe, as good as or better than that of any other country in the world. Where the coal industry has failed is on the marketing and distribution side. It is not strong enough—consisting as it does of so many different producers all selling separately—to bargain with the other trades and to bargain with big purchasers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here!"] I have no desire to leave this side of the House. It is not in compulsory amalgamation that the remedy for the coal industry lies. I have never taken quite the same view as the majority of my hon. Friends here on Part I of the Bill. I believe that some concentration of output by regulation is required in the coal industry, with a productive capacity far in excess of any possible market requirements, but Part I of the Bill goes far beyond anything of this sort. Part I of the Bill consists not only of regulation of output, but of fixation of price.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) prophesied in December, as a result of the Bill, as a result of the regulation of output, as a result of the levy for export or other purposes, an increase in the price of coal of something like 4s. 6d. a ton. It is a very remarkable thing to me that a Free Trade party, so keen, so anxious, that any luxury commodity like motor cars or gramophones should be imported into this country as cheaply as possible, should be apparently wholly indifferent to the fixation of the price of a commodity which goes into every home in the land. If it be true that there is going to be a rise of 4s. 6d. in the price of coal. I should have thought the party
below the Gangway, of all people, would have gone into the Lobby against it. It is an exceedingly novel position. The two Protectionist parties in this House are now situated opposite me and below the Gangway on this side. The chilly winds of December have gone, and the balmy breezes of spring are here. I am inclined to think that it is not the influence of sea power or of naval conferences upon history which has to do with the change of position below the Gangway. The book that I look forward to reading is "The Influence of Hoar Frost on History."
To his many great gifts, I believe the President of the Board of Trade has added a further acquisition during the progress of the Debates on this Bill. I believe he has stolen an arrow out of the quiver of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and I believe that when this vital Amendment dealing with the fixation of minimum prices comes along, the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of a little bit of bluff. I believe that hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway believed that fixation of price was vital to Part I of the Bill. Those who have had some experience of it know that you can have regulation of output without having fixation of price, but that you cannot have fixation of price without regulation of output. Fixation of price is not in any way vital to Part I of the Bill, but without fixation of price I believe it is impossible artificially to raise the price of coal. Regulation of output cannot be used, in my view, for increasing the price of coal, and therefore if you have to increase the price of coal in order to finance your shorter hours, the only way is to have price fixation in the Bill.
I want briefly to summarise my objections to the Bill. The coal industry when hon. Members opposite came into office was a sick man, but a man who was convalescing. He had been given by the Conservative Government a little useful tonic in the shape of derating. He was approaching convalescence, but he still required, what the coal industry still requires, the vitalising and invigorating flow of new capital. What is the first thing that the party opposite did for the coal industry? By reducing hours at this time they put an additional burden on
to the coal trade which amounts in some districts to is. 6d. a ton; spread over the whole industry it is fair to say that 9d. per ton will be the average increase in the cost of coal through the shorter hours. Ninepence a ton may seem a comparatively small sum, but it represents £9,000,000 a year, or double the benefit which was received by the industry under the derating proposals. That loss has to fall on either the industry or the consumer, or upon both.
That is the crux of the whole charge against the Government. They have put an additional burden upon an industry which was in a bad way when they started, and which will not be in a much better way when they have done. Ever since the Government came into office, uncertainty has hung over the coal industry as to what form this legislation would take. Uncertainty hangs over the industry still. Who knows what the position is going to be in July, 1931, when the present arrangement as to hours runs out? Who knows what the position will be in December, 1932, when Part I of this Bill runs out? That is my real charge against the Government, that uncertainty hangs over this industry to-day, as it did when they came into office, and as it will continue to do so long as they remain in office.

Mr. ROWSON: I rise to support the Bill. I have listened during the Debates to the hon. Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) make many speeches, and also to another hon. Member opposite who is directly connected with the mining industry. I have felt all the time, while listening to these two hon. Members, that it would be a good thing if they would just look back and see what employers in the mining industry have done in the past. The whole of the social conditions of the people that you employ are a disgrace to you and to your forebears. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member will address me.

Mr. ROWSON: It is quite certain that the industry is in a bad way, to judge by what Tory Governments and the coal-owners said in 1926. They said that if they could only get the hours increased, and could cut the cost of production, everything would go right for the industry. We on this side predicted exactly
what has taken place. Everything the representatives of the miners said at that time has been borne out by subsequent events. Commission after commission has reported that the industry was being run on rotten lines, that the methods of working and of conducting the industry were entirely wrong, but in no single case has the recommendations of any commission been put into operation. In the main, the wishes of the coalowners and the Tory Government have been followed; and yet we hear from the hon. Member who has just sat down that the industry is still sick. I am of the opinion that this Bill does at least turn the industry in another direction. Along with many other hon. Members on these benches I confess that the Bill does not give us anything like satisfaction, but we have seen so many struggles, we have gone through so much with our men, have seen the women and children suffer so much, that we are glad to see the industry directed into a different channel without a strike or a fight in the industrial field, and the Government are to be congratulated on doing even this.
It has been said that there is no authority for adopting the system of price fixing and organised marketing. Why, even the Lewis Committee, which was set up by the Tory Government in 1926, said this, on page 19 of their report:
We regard it as unreasonable that the coal mining industry, alone among all the industries of the country, should be regarded as debarred on grounds of public policy from organising its marketing Many of its principal customers are organised, many industries from which it has to purchase are organised, and there is no reason why it should be expected to deny itself the same advantage.
This conclusion was arrived at by the Committee after considering all the evidence submitted to it by those who were opposed to organised marketing. We hear a lot about price-fixing being likely to raise the price of coal to the consumer. I wonder if consumers are aware of the difference between pithead prices and what is charged to the consumer. I submit that the difference between the pithead price and what the consumer is charged provides an ample margin out of which to meet all the compensation to be given to the industry and for consumers to get coal at their present prices,
and possibly less, with organised marketing.

Major G. DAVIES: The Bill does not touch that.

Mr. ROWSON: It gives the opportunity for coalowners to organise themselves and to give consumers coal at a reasonable price while getting a decent price for it at the pithead. I do not want to quote prices, but I am satisfied that this cry of "dear coal" will be falsified
the coming years. We have heard from hon. Members opposite that we shall hear about the rising price of coal when we face our constituents and other sections of the community. After going about the country I am satisfied that even should the price have to go up the feeling for the miners is such that there will not be any complaints, if people know that the miners are getting a higher standard of life. I submit that, if the price of coal does go up on the lines suggested, it will not mean as much to the consumers as scores of them are now contributing to the relief fund to heal the sores inflicted by the coalowners and the Tory Government in recent years. I hope that hon. Members have not forgotten 1926. Hon. Members may talk about what others feel in regard to this Bill, but the fact that hundreds of thousands of trade unionists and workers generally downed tools to prevent the state of things which this Bill seeks to remedy is a sufficient reply to those who want to set one section of workers against the other.
Take the Section of this Bill dealing with hours. The bon. Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) stated that there was no necessity for the Labour party promising to reduce the hours of miners to seven hours per day as we did. I submit that if the Tory Government had not taken the action which they took in 1926 we should not have had to take the action which we are taking now. What was the evidence before the Samuel Commission? It was made public that the hours of miners in this country would be longer than those in any European country with the exception of Upper Silesia if the desires of the coalowners were accepted. On page 172 of the Report of the Samuel Commission it states:
The comparison with other countries, so far as it bears on the standard of life that we should seek to establish for miners here, tells against the proposal of the
Mining Association rather than in its favour.
All the evidence is against any increase in hours. On page 173 of the same Report we find this statement:
All that can be said is that the hours in this country do not differ from those in other countries so substantially as to constitute a serious handicap.
That was a statement which was made substantiating the seven-hour day. The coalowners have had an extra hour a day ever since 1926 and, owing to the position in which the miners were placed, the coal-owners were able to reduce the wages of the miners to an extent which is a disgrace to any section of employers in this country. The miners have had an increase in hours and a
reduction in wages, and the coal industry is in a more chaotic condition to-day than it was in 1926. As for the hours and all the talk about mines being shallow, there is more reason to-day for reverting to a seven-hour day in the mining industry than there was in 1908 when the Liberal Government gave us the eight-hour day. I submit that for this reason. The mines are getting deeper and hotter with every mine that is sunk, and I know of scores of cases where men are working with loin-cloths on, and bathing drawers, because it is so hot underground and the work is so strenuous. I submit that under these conditions seven hours are sufficiently long for any human being to be underground, in some cases 3,000 feet and more below the earth's surface.
I come now to the question of the Wages Board. On this point, I am particularly thankful that we are going to have a tribunal, provided that Parliament passes this Bill into law, which will at least attempt to settle the disputes that have arisen from time to time in this industry. I am not very old, but I remember the strikes of 1893, 1912, 1920, 1921 and 1926, and in four of these I was actively engaged. I am thankful that here we have, at least, an attempt to avoid—or, at any rate, we shall have a tribunal to which we can submit our disputes, and the evidence for our cases, which may avoid—struggles of the type of those to which I have just referred. I hope that the House will give this Bill its Third Reading, because I am certain that many of the predictions that have been voiced on the other side of the
House will be falsified, and at least it is an attempt by the present Labour Government to turn the industry into a new direction and a new channel.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: During the Debate this afternoon I was anxious to mention a certain point to the President of the Board of Trade, and I was told that it was not in order on the Amendment then before the House, and that I should have to leave it until the Third Reading. I want now to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very important point. Although we have got as far as the Third Reading in this House, there is another place to which the Bill has to go, and, if anything in the nature of an Amendment can be introduced there, it might be wise that it should be done. Possibly the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has not been called to the matter. I refer to an Amendment moved, in the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee, dealing with the effect of schemes on contracts already made. I put certain questions to the Attorney-General at that time, to which he was good enough to reply, and he gave me, on one point, a quite categorical reply. I wanted to know what would be the position of those people who have made contracts already, which were to run for, say, another 12 months, and I referred particularly to contracts which had been made by people owning fishing vessels. Many of these contracts were made before 11th December, and some have been made since.
The Attorney-General, in reply to my question, said that he could assure me that, as far as these trawler owners were concerned, their contracts were quite all right. I was very much pleased with that assurance, and went away feeling quite satisfied, but there are other sections of that particular new clause, which was moved by the President of the Board of Trade, to which I want to call his attention, because I am afraid that during the rest of the proceedings in Committee, having got that assurance from the Attorney-General, we allowed the other parts to slip through without any close examination. The clause has, however, been closely examined by an eminent legal authority since, and he expresses some doubt as to whether these contracts really will be binding, and
gives his reasons why; and, if I may be permitted, I should like to read his words, because the matter is important. He says:
The statements made by the learned Attorney-General naturally carry great weight and deserve most serious consideration, although the construction of the Bill, on becoming an Act, will be for the British Judiciary on the exact wording of the Act. The present position is peculiar and indeed curious for the following reasons.
Part I of the Act contemplates the imposition upon, and recovery of monetary penalties from, any owner of a coal mine who offends its provisions. It is a penal section for offences to be made unlawful. You cannot normally make a legal contract to do an unlawful Act. If it is contrary to law how can the law enforce it? This is why illegality of performance usually renders a contract void and unenforceable
There was an original clause in the Bill which rendered the contract null and void if it contravened any scheme under Part I of the Act. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned it himself and stated that it has been placed there in error and he was putting his Amendment forward to remedy the defect. If it were made illegal as regards any contract already made before the Act was passed, we should know just where we are; but, says this legal opinion,
The Amendment contemplates that on the one hand a delinquent contractual coal mine owner shall be subject to penalties for exceeding his quota whilst on the other hand he is to be liable to his buyer under any such contract—which seems rather Gilbertian. How can the buyer enforce his contract in such circumstances and how can he secure delivery? It may not be at all satisfactory to have to buy elsewhere and sue for damages whilst a coal mine owner will be reluctant to fulfil—and may stir up excuses for non-fulfilment of—any contract which may involve him in penalties. The Amendment would only excuse him from penalties if the excess of his quota was—

(a) solely caused by the fulfilment of contracts made prior to the 11th December, 1929, when the Bill was introduced and
(b) was reasonably necessary for such fulfilment and
(c) was not substantially injurious to the interests of the owners of other coal mines in the district."

I want the President of the Board of Trade to go into this matter with the Attorney-General, because, if something is not done to remedy this, it is going to put us in a position of very great difficulty. On the one hand, many contracts have been made in good faith, and we
have had the assurance of the Attorney-General that they are perfectly in order. Considering the other sections of this particular clause which were moved, it does seem that there is really ground for further inquiry into this matter, and I sincerely hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look into it, and, if it does require amendment—for I am sure he is not at all desirous of doing anything unjust to either party in these contracts—then we shall get something really beneficial. I want to make it quite clear why it is I am so anxious about this matter. In this question of the price of coal for the trawling industry it is not merely a matter of saving money for the trawler owners, but it affects the men. If these orders are not going to be allowed to stand, we shall be in a much worse position than we are now. Under the Bill, at any rate, we shall have some little respite as regards the increased price if these contracts are allowed to stand.
I want to point out what a serious matter this is to the fishermen concerned. I have a perfect right to do so, because I am here to represent the fishermen of the country in the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them!"] I say all of them, for I have travelled in every seaport round the coast, and I know the fishermen much better than the hon. Member. I want to emphasise the effect it may have if these particular contracts are not allowed to hold good and if we have to pay an increased price for coal. We have been told repeatedly, particularly from the benches below me, that the result of this will be an increase in the price of coal, and the right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), speaking on the Second Reading, asked quite clearly if there was going to be no increase what good was the Bill at all? I can see the logic of that. The miners get the biggest proportion of whatever increase there is in the price of coal on their wages ascertainments, and naturally they want to see an increased price, as otherwise it is going to be no good to them. I want to consider the point of view of my own people. What effect is a shilling a ton in the price of coal going to have on our men who are on share? Take a crew that is doing Iceland trips. It will take £14 4s. 9d. a year from the earnings of the skipper, it will take £10 7s. 2d. a year from the
earnings of the mate, it will take £2 8s. 4d. from the boatswain. The third hand will have to contribute £1 4s. 3d. So it goes down even to the trimmer and the cook. I have the right to see to it that contracts which have already been made shall be regarded as perfectly good contracts.
Viewing the Bill from the point of view of the industry I represent, I am not at all pleased with it. From the consumers' point of view it has no virtues whatever. [Interruption.] The hon. Member represents the coalminers, and does it very well indeed, and I do not blame him for making the best bargain he can for the men he represents. At the same time, other people have a right to put the position of those whom they represent. I object to the Bill because its provisions are compulsory and because it means a limit of output. I can imagine what sort of time we should have in the fishing industry if we had a Bill to limit our output. We should have a few complaints, I have no doubt, from hon. Members and from the public outside. It is going to differentiate between one class of coal consumer and another. It is possible to give special consideration to various industries. Naturally, we are all hoping that our own particular industry will be the one to receive special consideration, but I do not think there ought to be any differentiation.
11.0 p.m.
All we ask for is a free market in which to buy. We have this pernicious system of levies. Some of us who have experience of the Five Counties Scheme know what that means. Penalties can be imposed upon defaulting owners and the ring of the marketing board—you cannot call it anything else but a ring—will be entirely controlled by the coal-owners. The alleged safeguards, at any rate in the opinion of the people in the industry I represent, are entirely illusory. We do not see any great benefit that we are going to get out of that. It is modelled somewhat on the lines of the Food Council. It does not seem to me to have any great power of safeguarding the consumer. It can make recommendations but can do practically nothing else. I am not at all satisfied that that is a reasonable safeguard.
For the rest of the community it is going to increase the cost of living. It cannot do otherwise. If it is only in the question of gas, electricity and things of public utility it is bound to make a difference in the cost. That being so, how can anyone on this side of the House be enthusiastic about it? I agree that every section of the community, miners, fishermen or any other workers, have a right to a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It is not fair or right to penalise one section of the community for the benefit of another section. We have to take our chance as a fishing industry in the open markets of the country. We can only sell our fish in the open market to the highest bidder. Our men have to take their chance as to whether they will earn a profit or not as a result of the voyage they make. They may go out in the depth of winter into the Icelantic waters, and even into the Arctic seas, and risk their lives, and yet when they return to port there is no guaranteed price for them. They do not grumble at that, but they say that, seeing that they have to work under those conditions, they want a free market in which to buy the commodities which they require to carry on their calling. Representatives of mining constituencies may say, "We can go back to our constituencies and they will not grumble." But hon. Members opposite who do not represent mining constituencies will find that this is a very bad Bill to defend when they go into their constituencies, and that people will not be so ready to cast their votes in their favour.

Mr. STRACHEY: We have reached the final stage of this Measure, and I do not propose to detain the House or to go into the extravagant charges levied against it by the party opposite. These charges come down to two—that it is going to restrict the quantity of coal to be sold and to increase its price. It is rather significant that the only two Members of the party opposite who have spoken on this Bill and who are intimately connected with mining did not make that charge. The only reference the hon. Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) made to the actual provisions of the Bill was to give a warm approval to its marketing proposals, while the hon. Mem-
ber for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts), during the Committee stage of the Bill, has given the most notable contributions to a defence of the Measure which have only been partly offset by his going into the Lobby against it at the close of his speech in favour of it. It is not surprising, after all, that these gentlemen, who have an intimate knowledge of the state of the industry, should not be able to support the charge that this Bill will in any real sense restrict the amount of coal which can be sold. You can only support that if you take the entirely fallacious view that you cannot have too much coal. That may have been true in the last century in an era when the industry was very rapidly expanding, but it is wholly out of date today. You only want as much coal as the industries of this country and Europe can absorb, and you have to have that coal as cheaply as you can get it. But it is no use supposing that you can get it below the cost of production.
The only restriction which this Bill will make is to restrict the amount of coal you raise to the amount of coal you want, and the only effect price regulation will have will be to ensure that the coal is not sold below the cost of production, which has happened in the past but which is of no real benefit in the long run to those classes of the community which use the coal. When this Measure is on the Statute Book, as I hope it will be in the near future, we shall have the coal industry regulated and controlled to a very large extent. The hours will be fixed, wages are fixed under ascertainments which vary according to price and cost, the amount of coal which can be raised will be regulated, and the price at which it can be sold will also be regulated. Those of us on this side of the House will agree that it is rather a formidable, and we may fear, rather cumbersome machinery which is being set up by this Bill. I do not think that we can doubt that if any of us had been drafting this Bill, or if the President of the Board of Trade could have been given a clean slate, that we or he would have set up precisely this machinery. It has the stamp of the provisional upon it. That is recognised by the time limit which is in the Bill. It is not meant to be anything more than a stop-gap Measure. It is limited to two years, or
two and a-half years, perhaps, from the time that it comes into force.
Looking at its provisions one can see that it is a child born of the exigencies of the political situation as it is to-day. It is only to give the hard-pressed miners of this country a breathing space and to give the industry generally a breathing space until they can recover themselves. It was never intended to be and it cannot be the final solution of the problem which we have to solve. The Debates have shown us that they have brought out remorselessly the logic of the position, that once you abandon the perfectly free play of competition between the thousand or more colliery companies in this country—once you abandon that traditional policy, it is extraordinarily difficult to find any firm ground until you have gone right on to a wholly unified industry. The defects and difficulties, if there are defects and difficulties in this Bill and the degree of cumberousness which we have had to make in our machinery for safeguarding the interests of the consumer, are all due to the fact that we have had to set up something in the nature of a monopoly, and in the political situation as it is to-day we have had to leave that monopoly in private hands. That has necessitated the some-what elaborate system of safeguards and committees and arbitrations which we have in this Bill, and it has brought out the fact that the logic of the situation is that, once you have abandoned, as one does abandon very definitely in this Bill—because we have turned our back upon it the free and unregulated play of competition, which is one kind of safeguard for the consumer, it is very difficult to stop until you have got a unified industry. I trust that in the two years which this Bill will give us—I have no doubt that in practice it will give us a certain stability in the industry for two years—those of us who have this problem at heart and are deeply interested in it, will try to hammer out some scheme whereby the industry can be set on a unified basis. I do not think that any Member of this House, if he was willing to accept the proposition that I have just put forward, would dissent from the view that such a unified industry must be in the last resort responsible to the public, that the ownership of it must be public, and that it must be, in
a phrase which has been used by hon. Members opposite, a public concern.
The problem which will then face us is how to devise a constitution for this unified industry which will give us the safeguard of it being a public concern and in the last analysis publicly owned, and which will avoid those defects of a bureaucratic and too close control by the central government which have often been urged against schemes of this kind. The Bill drives us towards that conclusion as the only possible road upon which this industry can go. Some hon. Members know that it was the fate of myself and another hon. Member, who is now a member of the Government, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), to devise two years ago proposals along these lines. At that time we were premature, and our proposals for a unified national public coal industry were perhaps equally unwelcome to the extreme right and extreme left of the party to which we belong. That position naturally encouraged us to believe that we were after all on the right lines. Two years later we find that the actual force of circumstances is driving the nation to apply this kind of solution to the mining
industry. Unification is the only possible solution, and unification is unthinkable without some measure of public control. How that is actually to be devised must be hammered out. There is nothing sacrosanct in the proposals which we put up at that time. Indeed, they are obviously made out of date by the provisions of this Bill, but the point which we stressed strongly is perhaps the key to these matters, and that is that the relationship of the central Government and of the great public corporations which may be envisaged as running a unified industry should be analogous to the relationship of a private company to its debenture holders.

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be nationalisation, and it would certainly not be in order for the hon. Member to pursue that on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. STRACHEY: I accept your Ruling. I was endeavouring to show
that the logic of the Bill, as we have argued it in Committee, drives us forward, and it becomes clear that we shall have to make a further step forward after the two years have expired. I was going on to say that the Amalgamation Commission which is being set up under the Bill, must surely be the nucleus around which any future proposals which emanate from this House for the future upbuilding of a unified and national industry must centre. Unification must be the key to this problem. I remember a story of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) when he was in the Great War and was engaged in accomplishing that unification of command which contributed so greatly to the Allied victory. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not a case of one general being better than another, but of one general being better than two. It is the same with the coal mining industry. It is not that one coal organisation is better than another, but of one organisation being better than the thousand organisations which at present mis-manage the industry. I hope that we shall use these two years in this Parliament in hammering out proposals which may then be laid before this House for the unification of the industry, which a majority of hon. Members can adopt. I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with me that that principle of unification, and the corollary which it must carry with it, is the only principle which can really deliver this industry from the parlous condition in which it has been ever since the Great War.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Commodore King.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were rea[...]i and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do 'now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly, at Eighteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.